First off, let me just apologize right off the bat in case this is already answered, because I might just be searching it under irregular search terms.
I am looking to draw 2D graphics in an application that uses DirectX to draw its own graphics (A game). I will be doing that by injecting a DLL into the application (that part I have no questions about, I can do that), and drawing my graphics. But not being really good at DirectX/OpenGL, I have a couple of fundamental questions to ask.
1) In order to draw graphics on that window, will I need to get a pre-existing context from the process memory, some sort of handle to the drawing scene?
2) If the application uses DirectX, can I use OpenGL graphics on it?
Please let me know as to how I can approach this. Any details will be appreciated :-)
Thank you in advance.
Your approach in injecting an DLL is indeed the right way to go. Programs like FRAPS use the same approach. I can't tell you about the method for Direct3D, but for OpenGL you'd do about the following things:
First you must Hook into the functions wglMakeCurrent, glFinish and wglSwapBuffers of opengl32.dll so that your DLL notices when a OpenGL context is selected for drawing. Pass their calls through to the OS. When wglMakeCurrent is called use the function GetPixelFormat to find out if the window is double buffered or not. Also use the glGet… OpenGL calls to find out which version of OpenGL context you're dealing with. In case you have a legacy OpenGL context you must use different methods for drawing your overlay, than for a modern OpenGL-3 or later core context.
In case of a double buffered window use your Hook on wglSwapBuffers to perform further OpenGL drawing operations. OpenGL is just pens and brushes (in form of points, lines and triangles) drawing on a canvas. Then pass through the wglSawpBuffers call to make everything visible.
In case of a single buffered context instead of wglSwapBuffers the function to hook is glFinish.
Draw 2D with OpenGL is as simple as disable depth buffering and using an orthographic projection matrix. You can change OpenGL state whenever you desire to do so. Just make sure you restore everything into its original condition before you leave the hooks.
"1) In order to draw graphics on that window, will I need to get a pre-existing context from the process memory, some sort of handle to the drawing scene?"
Yes, you need to make sure your hooks catch the important context creation functions.
For example, all variations of CreateDevice in d3d are interesting to you.
You didn't mention which DirectX you are using, but there are some differences between the versions.
For example, At DirectX 9 you'd be mostly interested in functions that:
1. Create/return IDirect3DSwapChain9 objects
2. Create/return IDirect3DDevice9,IDirect3DDevice9Ex objects
In newer versions of DirectX their code was splitted into (mostly) Device, DeviceContext, & DXGI.
If you are on a "specific mission" share which directx version you are addressing.
Apart from catching all the needed objects to allow your own rendering, you also want to catch all presentation events ("SwapBuffers" in GL, "Present" in DX),
Because that's time that you want to add your overlay.
Since it seems that you are attempting to render an overlay on top of DX applications, allow me to warn you that making a truly generic solution (that works on all games) isn't easy.
mostly due to need to support different DX versions along with numerous ways to create
If you are focused on a specific game/application it is, naturally, much easier.
"2. If the application uses DirectX, can I use OpenGL graphics on it?"
Well, first of all yes. It's possible.
The terminology that you want to search for is OpenGL DirectX interoperability (or in short interop)
Here's an example:
https://sites.google.com/site/snippetsanddriblits/OpenglDxInterop
I don't know if the extension they used is only available in nVidia devices or not - check it.
Another thing about this is that you need a really good motivation in order to do it, generally I would simply stick with DX for both hooking and rendering.
I assume that internal interop between different DX version is better option.
I'd personally probably go with DirectX9 for your own rendering code.
Of course, if you only need to support a single DirectX version, no interop needed.
Bonus:
If you ever need to generate full wrappers of C++ classes, a quick n' dirty dll wrapper, or just general global function hook, feel free to use this lib that i created:
http://code.google.com/p/hookit/
It's far from a fully tested tool, just something i hacked 2 days, but I found it super useful.
Note that in your case, i recommend just to use VTable hooking, you'll probably have to hardcode the function offset into the table, but that's not likely to change.
Good luck :)
Related
I'm currently developing a GameEngine API/framework so far I have an OpenGL 4.6 context where I load all the functions by myself (no OpenGL wrapper). The Engine is still under heavy construction, but some 3D stuff is already possible. Now the Engine was targeted to primarily draw 3D objects, but I'm also considering 2D stuff (though I haven't started yet to implement it).
Right now I'm creating kind of a user interface framework (which can be used instead of the 3D or 2D engine and likewise) "like" MFC, WinForms... you name it. For that, I'm using Windows's OpenGL 1.1 implementation, and that's where we get to my actual question.
Is using such an old OpenGL, or any legacy OpenGL version, considered as a bad practice? I know this question may be opinion-based, but especially in my case, I think it's the easiest way to create reusable controls; besides from that it's super interesting to create controls like a button all by myself, you have to think about everything. And I don't think Microsoft will remove it soon from their API if so, this would mean, we wouldn't be able to get an OpenGL context at all if I'm not completely wrong on that.
Additional information:
The way people/I should use the framework is, you would need to choose one of the types, the Engine can provide, such as 3D, 2D or creating a "normal" user-interface.
The reason I choose Windows's OpenGL implementation for the user-interface is, that it would also be possible to create a user-interface for Windows XP.
I currently use functions like glBegin(), glEnd(), glVertex2f() and glColor3f() to draw a button and wglUseFontBitmaps(), glPushAttrib(), glListBase(), glCallLists(), glPopAttrib() to draw the text.
Regarding the OpenGL context, I use Nehe's way to get a context:
http://nehe.gamedev.net/tutorial/creating_an_opengl_window_(win32)/13001/
So for the user-interface, I don't use the 4.6 context but 1.1
This is probably a stupid question, but I cant find good examples on how to approach this, or if its even possible. Im just done with a project where I used gdi to biblt stuff onto a DIB-buffer then swap that onto the screen hdc, basically making my own swapchain and drawing with opengl.
So then I thought, can I do the same thing using directx11? But I cant seem to find where the DIB/buffer I need to change even is.
Am I even thinking about this correctly? Any ideas on how to handle this?
Yes, you can. Nvidia exposes vendor-specific extensions called NV_DX_interop and NV_DX_Interop2. With these extensions, you can directly access a DirectX surface (when it resides on the GPU) and render to it from an OpenGL context. There should be minimal (driver-only) overhead for this operation and the CPU will almost never be involved.
Note that while this is a vendor-specific extension, Intel GPUs support it as well.
However, don't do this simply for the fun of it or if you control all the source code for your application. This kind of interop scenario is meant for cases where you have two legacy/complicated codebases and interop is a cheaper/better option than porting all the logic to the other API.
Yeah you can do it, both OpenGL and D3D support both writeable textures and locking them to get to the pixel data.
Simply render your scene in OpenGL to a texture, lock it, read the pixel data and pass it directly to the D3D locked texture pixel data, unlock it then do whatever you want with the texture.
Performance would be dreadful of course, you're stalling the GPU multiple times in a single "operation" and forcing it to synchronize with the CPU (who's passing the data) and the bus (for memory access). Plus there would be absolutely no benefit at all. But if you really want to try it, you can do it.
My straight answer would be NO. But I am curious how they created this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC3JGG6xHN8
They used video editing software. They recorded two nearly deterministic run-throughs of their engine and spliced them together.
As for the question posed by your title, not within the same window. It may be possible within the same application from two windows, but you'd be better off with two separate applications.
Yes, it is possible. I did this as an experiment for a graduate course; I implemented half of a deferred shading graphics engine in OpenGL and the other half in D3D10. You can share surfaces between OpenGL and D3D contexts using the appropriate vendor extensions.
Does it have any practical applications? Not many that I can think of. I just wanted to prove that it could be done :)
I digress, however. That video is just a side-by-side of two separately recorded videos of the Haven benchmark running in the two different APIs.
My straight answer would be NO.
My straight answer would be "probably yes, but you definitely don't want to do that."
But I am curious how they created this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC3JGG6xHN8
They prerendered the video, and simply combined it via video editor. Because camera has fixed path, that can be done easily.
Anyway, you could render both (DirectX/OpenGL) scenes onto offscreen buffers, and then combine them using either api to render final result. You would read data from render buffer in one api and transfer it into renderable buffer used in another api. The dumbest way to do it will be through system memory (which will be VERY slow), but it is possible that some vendors (nvidia, in particular) provide extensions for this scenario.
On windows platform you could also place two child windows/panels side-by-side on the main windows (so you'll get the same effect as in that youtube video), and create OpenGL context for one of them, and DirectX device for another. Unless there's some restriction I'm not aware of, that should work, because in order to render 3d graphics, you need window with a handle (HWND). However, both windows will be completely independent of each other and will not share resources, so you'll need 2x more memory for textures alone to run them both.
How can I draw a pixel array very fast in c++?
I've seen many questions like this on stackoverflow,
they are all answered with:
use gdi (windows)
use opengl
...
but there must be a way, how opengl is doing it!
I'm writing a little raytracer and need to draw every pixel
many times per second.
opengl is able to do it, platform independent and fast,
so how can i achieve that without opengl?
And "without opengl" dos not mean
use sdl (slow)
use this / that library
Please only suggest the platform native methods
or the library closest to that.
If it is possible (i know it is)
how can I do this?
platform independent solutions are preferred.
Drawing graphics on Linux you either have to use X11, or OpenGL. (And in the near future Wayland may be another option). In Linux there is no "native" way of doing graphics, because the Linux kernel doesn't care about graphics APIs. It provides a interfaces (DRM) using which graphics systems are then implemented in user space. If you just want to splat pixels on the screen, without caring about windows then you could also mmap /dev/fbdev – but you normally don't want that, because nobody wants his screen being clobbered by some program he can't move or hide.
Drawing single points is inefficient, no matter which API being uses, due to the protocol overhead.
So X11 it is. So the best bet is to use the MIT-SHM extension which you use to alter pixels in a buffer, which is then blitted in whole by the X11 server. Of course doing this using the pure X11 Xlib functions is annoyingly cumbersome. So this is what SDL effectively nicely wraps up for you.
The other option is OpenGL. OpenGL is not a library! It's a system level API, that gives you almost direct access to the GPU. And it integrates nicely with X11. Yes, the API is provided through a library that's being loaded, but technically that library is just a "wrapper" or "interface" to the actual driver. Drawing single points with OpenGL makes no sense. But you can "batch up" several points into a list (using a vertex array) and then process that list. So the idea is to collect all the incoming points between two display refresh intervals and draw them in one single batch.
platform independent solutions are preferred.
Why are you asking about native APIs then? By definition there can be no plattform independent native API. Either you're native, or you're plattform independent.
And in your particular scenario I think SDL would be the best solution, because it offers just the right kind of abstraction and program side interface for a raytracer. Just FYI: Virtual Machines like QEmu use SDL.
Or you use OpenGL which is a real plattform neutral API widely supported.
Drawing graphics on Linux you either have to use X11, or OpenGL.
This is absolutely false! Counterexample: there's platforms that don't run X11, yet they display pixels (eg. fonts).
Sidenote. OpenGL usually depends on X11 (it's possible, albeit hard, to run OpenGL without X11).
As #datenwork says, there's at least 2 other ways to draw pixels:
The framebuffer device (fbdev), an abstraction to interface with graphics hardware. Very old, designed by Martin Schaller, see the kernel docs. Source code is here. Also see here. Here's the simplest possible framebuffer driver.
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM), a kernel subsystem that provides an API for userland apps to send commands/data directly to the GPU. (Seems suspiciously similar to what OpenGL does, but idk!). Source code is here. Here's a DRM example that inititializes a simple display pipeline.
Both of these are part of the kernel, so they're lower-level than X11, which is not part of the kernel. Both can draw arbitrary pixels (eg. penguins). I'd guess both of these are platform-independent (like OpenGL).
See this for more on how to draw stuff on Linux.
I know GLUT's quadrics, I used it in a few programs when I was in school. Now I'm working on a real world application and I find myself in need of drawing some geometric primitives (cubes, spheres, cylinders), but now I also know that GLUT is a no longer supported and it's last update was in like 2005. So I'm wondering if there's anything other than GLUT's quadrics to draw such geometric shapes. I'm asking if there's anything made before I go ahead and start making my own from vertices arrays.
Yes, you can! You can use the native API of the OS to create a window with OpenGL capabilities.
The advantage of GLUT is that is makes this task easier and is a cross-platform solution.
There are other cross-platform libraries that are more complex to work with but provide the same functionality, like Qt.
NeHe has a huge amount of examples that use several different technologies to accomplish what you are looking for. Check the bottom of the page.
Here is a demo for Windows that creates a window and draws a simple OpenGL triangle inside it. This demo removes all the window frame to give the impression that a triangle is floating on the screen. And here is a similar demo for Linux.
GLUT is just some conveniece framework that came to life way after OpenGL. The problem is not, that GLUT is unmaintained. The problem is, that GLUT was not and never will be meant for serious applications.
Then there's also GLU providing some primitives, but just as GLUT it's merely a companion library. You don't need either.
The way OpenGL works is, that you deliver it arrays of vertex attributes (position, color, normal, texture coordinates, etc.) and tell to draw a set of primitives (points, lines, triangles) from those attributes from a second array of indices referencing into the vertex attribute arrays.
There used to be the immediate mode in versions prior to OpenGL-3 core, but that got depreceated – good riddance. It's only use was for populating display lists which used to have a slight performance advantage if one was using indirect GLX. With VBOs (server (=GPU) side vertex attribute storage) that's no longer an issue.
While GLUT has not been maintained, FreeGLUT has. There are still several alternatives though.
GLFW is a cross-platform windowing system which is easy to get up and running, and also provides the programmer with control of the main application loop.
SFML has support for many languages and also integration capabilities with other windowing schemes, in addition to being cross-platform.
Finally, Qt is another, popular, cross-platform windowing framework.
Now I'm working on a real world application and I find myself in need of drawing some geometric primitives (cubes, spheres, cylinders),
Actually, I don't remember anything except glut that would provide generic primitives. This might have something to do with the fact that those generic primitives are very easy to implement from scratch.
You can use other libraries (libsdl, for example, or Qt) to initialize OpenGL, though.
Most likely if you find generic library for loading meshes (or anything that provides "Mesh" object), then it will have primtives.
is a no longer supported and it's last update was in like 2005
Contrary to popular belief, code doesn't rot and it doesn't get worse with time. No matter how many years ago it was written, if it still works, you can use it.
Also there is FreeGLUT project. Last update: 2012.