Are point sprites the best choice to build a particle system?
Are point sprites present in the newer versions of OpenGL and drivers of the latest graphics cards? Or should I do it using vbo and glsl?
Point sprites are indeed well suited for particle systems. But they don't have anything to do with VBOs and GLSL, meaning they are a completely orthogonal feature. No matter if you use point sprites or not, you always have to use VBOs for uploading the geometry, be they just points, pre-made sprites or whatever, and you always have to put this geometry through a set of shaders (in modern OpenGL of course).
That being said point sprites are very well supported in modern OpenGL, just not that automatically as with the old fixed-function approach. What is not supported are the point attenuation features that let you scale a point's size based on it's distance to the camera, you have to do this manually inside the vertex shader. In the same way you have to do the texturing of the point manually in an appropriate fragment shader, using the special input variable gl_PointCoord (that says where in the [0,1]-square of the whole point the current fragment is). For example a basic point sprite pipeline could look this way:
...
glPointSize(whatever); //specify size of points in pixels
glDrawArrays(GL_POINTS, 0, count); //draw the points
vertex shader:
uniform mat4 mvp;
layout(location = 0) in vec4 position;
void main()
{
gl_Position = mvp * position;
}
fragment shader:
uniform sampler2D tex;
layout(location = 0) out vec4 color;
void main()
{
color = texture(tex, gl_PointCoord);
}
And that's all. Of course those shaders just do the most basic drawing of textured sprites, but are a starting point for further features. For example to compute the sprite's size based on its distance to the camera (maybe in order to give it a fixed world-space size), you have to glEnable(GL_PROGRAM_POINT_SIZE) and write to the special output variable gl_PointSize in the vertex shader:
uniform mat4 modelview;
uniform mat4 projection;
uniform vec2 screenSize;
uniform float spriteSize;
layout(location = 0) in vec4 position;
void main()
{
vec4 eyePos = modelview * position;
vec4 projVoxel = projection * vec4(spriteSize,spriteSize,eyePos.z,eyePos.w);
vec2 projSize = screenSize * projVoxel.xy / projVoxel.w;
gl_PointSize = 0.25 * (projSize.x+projSize.y);
gl_Position = projection * eyePos;
}
This would make all point sprites have the same world-space size (and thus a different screen-space size in pixels).
But point sprites while still being perfectly supported in modern OpenGL have their disadvantages. One of the biggest disadvantages is their clipping behaviour. Points are clipped at their center coordinate (because clipping is done before rasterization and thus before the point gets "enlarged"). So if the center of the point is outside of the screen, the rest of it that might still reach into the viewing area is not shown, so at the worst once the point is half-way out of the screen, it will suddenly disappear. This is however only noticable (or annyoing) if the point sprites are too large. If they are very small particles that don't cover much more than a few pixels each anyway, then this won't be much of a problem and I would still regard particle systems the canonical use-case for point sprites, just don't use them for large billboards.
But if this is a problem, then modern OpenGL offers many other ways to implement point sprites, apart from the naive way of pre-building all the sprites as individual quads on the CPU. You can still render them just as a buffer full of points (and thus in the way they are likely to come out of your GPU-based particle engine). To actually generate the quad geometry then, you can use the geometry shader, which lets you generate a quad from a single point. First you do only the modelview transformation inside the vertex shader:
uniform mat4 modelview;
layout(location = 0) in vec4 position;
void main()
{
gl_Position = modelview * position;
}
Then the geometry shader does the rest of the work. It combines the point position with the 4 corners of a generic [0,1]-quad and completes the transformation into clip-space:
const vec2 corners[4] = {
vec2(0.0, 1.0), vec2(0.0, 0.0), vec2(1.0, 1.0), vec2(1.0, 0.0) };
layout(points) in;
layout(triangle_strip, max_vertices = 4) out;
uniform mat4 projection;
uniform float spriteSize;
out vec2 texCoord;
void main()
{
for(int i=0; i<4; ++i)
{
vec4 eyePos = gl_in[0].gl_Position; //start with point position
eyePos.xy += spriteSize * (corners[i] - vec2(0.5)); //add corner position
gl_Position = projection * eyePos; //complete transformation
texCoord = corners[i]; //use corner as texCoord
EmitVertex();
}
}
In the fragment shader you would then of course use the custom texCoord varying instead of gl_PointCoord for texturing, since we're no longer drawing actual points.
Or another possibility (and maybe faster, since I remember geometry shaders having a reputation for being slow) would be to use instanced rendering. This way you have an additional VBO containing the vertices of just a single generic 2D quad (i.e. the [0,1]-square) and your good old VBO containing just the point positions. What you then do is draw this single quad multiple times (instanced), while sourcing the individual instances' positions from the point VBO:
glVertexAttribPointer(0, ...points...);
glVertexAttribPointer(1, ...quad...);
glVertexAttribDivisor(0, 1); //advance only once per instance
...
glDrawArraysInstanced(GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP, 0, 4, count); //draw #count quads
And in the vertex shader you then assemble the per-point position with the actual corner/quad-position (which is also the texture coordinate of that vertex):
uniform mat4 modelview;
uniform mat4 projection;
uniform float spriteSize;
layout(location = 0) in vec4 position;
layout(location = 1) in vec2 corner;
out vec2 texCoord;
void main()
{
vec4 eyePos = modelview * position; //transform to eye-space
eyePos.xy += spriteSize * (corner - vec2(0.5)); //add corner position
gl_Position = projection * eyePos; //complete transformation
texCoord = corner;
}
This achieves the same as the geometry shader based approach, properly-clipped point sprites with a consistent world-space size. If you actually want to mimick the screen-space pixel size of actual point sprites, you need to put some more computational effort into it. But this is left as an exercise and would be quite the oppisite of the world-to-screen transformation from the the point sprite shader.
Related
I have a deferred renderer which appears to work correctly, depth, colour and shading comes out correctly. However the position buffer is fine for orthographic, while the geometry appears 'inverted' (or depth disabled) when using a perspective projection.
I am getting the following buffer outputs for orthographic.
With the final 'shaded' image currently looking correct.
However when I am using a perspective projection I get the following buffers coming out...
And final image is fine, although I don't incorporate any position buffer information at the moment (N.B Only doing 'headlight' shading at the moment)
While the final image appears correct, the depth buffer appears to be ignored for my position buffer...(there is no glDisable(GL_DEPTH_TEST) in the code.
The depth and normal buffers looks ok to me, it's only the 'position' buffer which appears to be ignoring the depth? The render pipeline is exactly the same in for ortho and perspective with the only difference being the projection matrix.
I use glm::ortho, and glm::perspective and I calculate my near/far clipping distances on the fly based on the scene AABB. For orthographic my near/far is 1 & 11.4734 respectively, and for perspective it is 11.0875 & 22.5609... The width and height values are the same, fov is 45 for perspective projection.
I do have these calls before drawing any geometry...
glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST);
glEnable(GL_BLEND);
glBlendFunc(GL_SRC_ALPHA, GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA);
Which I use for compositing different layers as part of the render pipeline.
Am I doing anything wrong here? or am I misunderstanding something?
Here are my shaders...
Vertex shader of gBuffer...
#version 430 core
layout (std140) uniform MatrixPV
{
mat4 P;
mat4 V;
};
layout(location = 0) in vec3 InPoint;
layout(location = 1) in vec3 InNormal;
layout(location = 2) in vec2 InUV;
uniform mat4 M;
out vec4 Position;
out vec3 Normal;
out vec2 UV;
void main()
{
mat4 VM = V * M;
gl_Position = P * VM * vec4(InPoint, 1.0);
Position = P * VM * vec4(InPoint, 1.0);
Normal = mat3(M) * InNormal;
UV = InUV;
}
Fragment shader of gBuffer...
#version 430 core
layout(location = 0) out vec4 gBufferPicker;
layout(location = 1) out vec4 gBufferPosition;
layout(location = 2) out vec4 gBufferNormal;
layout(location = 3) out vec4 gBufferDiffuse;
in vec3 Normal;
in vec4 Position;
vec4 Diffuse();
uniform vec4 PickerColour;
void main()
{
gBufferPosition = Position;
gBufferNormal = vec4(Normal.xyz, 1.0);
gBufferPicker = PickerColour;
gBufferDiffuse = Diffuse();
}
And here is the 'second pass' shader to visualise the position buffer...
#version 430 core
uniform sampler2D debugBufferPosition;
in vec2 UV;
out vec4 frag;
void main()
{
vec3 val = texture(debugBufferPosition, UV).xyz;
frag = vec4(val.xyz, 1.0);
}
I haven't used the position buffer data yet, and I know I can reconstruct it without having to store them in another buffer, however the positions are useful for me for other reasons and I would like to know why they are coming out as they are for perspective?
What you actually write in the position buffer is the clip space coordinate
Position = P * VM * vec4(InPoint, 1.0);
The clip space coordinate is a Homogeneous coordinates and transformed to the normaliced device cooridnate (which is a Cartesian coordinate by a Perspective divide.
ndc = gl_Position.xyz / gl_Position.w;
At orthographic projection the w component is 1, but at perspective projection, the w component contains a value which depends on the z component (depth) of the (cartesian ) view space coordinate.
I recommend to store the normalized device coordinate to the position buffer, rather than the clip space coordinate. e.g.:
gBufferPosition = vec4(Position.xyz / Position.w, 1.0);
I have very basic OpenGL knowledge, but I'm trying to replicate the shading effect that MeshLab's visualizer has.
If you load up a mesh in MeshLab, you'll realize that if a face is facing the camera, it is completely lit and as you rotate the model, the lighting changes as the face that faces the camera changes. I loaded a simple unit cube with 12 faces in MeshLab and captured these screenshots to make my point clear:
Model loaded up (notice how the face is completely gray):
Model slightly rotated (notice how the faces are a bit darker):
More rotation (notice how all faces are now darker):
Off the top of my head, I think the way it works is that it is somehow assigning colors per face in the shader. If the angle between the face normal and camera is zero, then the face is fully lit (according to the color of the face), otherwise it is lit proportional to the dot product between the normal vector and the camera vector.
I already have the code to draw meshes with shaders/VBO's. I can even assign per-vertex colors. However, I don't know how I can achieve a similar effect. As far as I know, fragment shaders work on vertices. A quick search revealed questions like this. But I got confused when the answers talked about duplicate vertices.
If it makes any difference, in my application I load *.ply files which contain vertex position, triangle indices and per-vertex colors.
Results after the answer by #DietrichEpp
I created the duplicate vertices array and used the following shaders to achieve the desired lighting effect. As can be seen in the posted screenshot, the similarity is uncanny :)
The vertex shader:
#version 330 core
uniform mat4 projection_matrix;
uniform mat4 model_matrix;
uniform mat4 view_matrix;
in vec3 in_position; // The vertex position
in vec3 in_normal; // The computed vertex normal
in vec4 in_color; // The vertex color
out vec4 color; // The vertex color (pass-through)
void main(void)
{
gl_Position = projection_matrix * view_matrix * model_matrix * vec4(in_position, 1);
// Compute the vertex's normal in camera space
vec3 normal_cameraspace = normalize(( view_matrix * model_matrix * vec4(in_normal,0)).xyz);
// Vector from the vertex (in camera space) to the camera (which is at the origin)
vec3 cameraVector = normalize(vec3(0, 0, 0) - (view_matrix * model_matrix * vec4(in_position, 1)).xyz);
// Compute the angle between the two vectors
float cosTheta = clamp( dot( normal_cameraspace, cameraVector ), 0,1 );
// The coefficient will create a nice looking shining effect.
// Also, we shouldn't modify the alpha channel value.
color = vec4(0.3 * in_color.rgb + cosTheta * in_color.rgb, in_color.a);
}
The fragment shader:
#version 330 core
in vec4 color;
out vec4 out_frag_color;
void main(void)
{
out_frag_color = color;
}
The uncanny results with the unit cube:
It looks like the effect is a simple lighting effect with per-face normals. There are a few different ways you can achieve per-face normals:
You can create a VBO with a normal attribute, and then duplicate vertex position data for faces which don't have the same normal. For example, a cube would have 24 vertexes instead of 8, because the "duplicates" would have different normals.
You can use a geometry shader which calculates a per-face normal.
You can use dFdx() and dFdy() in the fragment shader to approximate the normal.
I recommend the first approach, because it is simple. You can simply calculate the normals ahead of time in your program, and then use them to calculate the face colors in your vertex shader.
This is simple flat shading, instead of using per vertex normals you can evaluate per face normal with this GLSL snippet:
vec3 x = dFdx(FragPos);
vec3 y = dFdy(FragPos);
vec3 normal = cross(x, y);
vec3 norm = normalize(normal);
then apply some diffuse lighting using norm:
// diffuse light 1
vec3 lightDir1 = normalize(lightPos1 - FragPos);
float diff1 = max(dot(norm, lightDir1), 0.0);
vec3 diffuse = diff1 * diffColor1;
This is how it should look like. It uses the same vertices/uv coordinates which are used for DX11 and OpenGL. This scene was rendered in DirectX10.
This is how it looks like in DirectX11 and OpenGL.
I don't know how this can happen. I am using for both DX10 and DX11 the same code on top and also they both handle things really similiar. Do you have an Idea what the problem may be and how to fix it?
I can send code if needed.
also using another texture.
changed the transparent part of the texture to red.
Fragment Shader GLSL
#version 330 core
in vec2 UV;
in vec3 Color;
uniform sampler2D Diffuse;
void main()
{
//color = texture2D( Diffuse, UV ).rgb;
gl_FragColor = texture2D( Diffuse, UV );
//gl_FragColor = vec4(Color,1);
}
Vertex Shader GLSL
#version 330 core
layout(location = 0) in vec3 vertexPosition;
layout(location = 1) in vec2 vertexUV;
layout(location = 2) in vec3 vertexColor;
layout(location = 3) in vec3 vertexNormal;
uniform mat4 Projection;
uniform mat4 View;
uniform mat4 World;
out vec2 UV;
out vec3 Color;
void main()
{
mat4 MVP = Projection * View * World;
gl_Position = MVP * vec4(vertexPosition,1);
UV = vertexUV;
Color = vertexColor;
}
Quickly said, it looks like you are using back face culling (which is good), and the other side of your model is wrongly winded. You can ensure that this is the problem by turning back face culling off (OpenGL: glDisable(GL_CULL_FACE)).
The real correction is (if this was the problem) to have correct winding of faces, usually it is counter-clockwise. This depends where you get this model. If you generate it on your own, correct winding in your model generation routine. Usually, model files created by 3D modeling software have correct face winding.
This is just a guess, but are you telling the system the correct number of polygons to draw? Calls like glBufferData() take the size in bytes of the data, not the number of vertices or polygons. (Maybe they should have named the parameter numBytes instead of size?) Also, the size has to contain the size of all the data. If you have color, normals, texture coordinates and vertices all interleaved, it needs to include the size of all of that.
This is made more confusing by the fact that glDrawElements() and other stuff takes the number of vertices as their size argument. The argument is named count, but it's not obvious that it's vertex count, not polygon count.
I found the error.
The reason is that I forgot to set the Texture SamplerState to Wrap/Repeat.
It was set to clamp so the uv coordinates were maxed to 1.
A few things that you could try :
Is depth test enabled ? It seems that your inner faces of the polygons from the 'other' side are being rendered over the polygons that are closer to the view point. This could happen if depth test is disabled. Enable it just in case.
Is lighting enabled ? If so turn it off. Some flashes of white seem to be coming in the rotating image. Could be because of incorrect normals ...
HTH
I am writing some font drawing shaders in OpenGL 3.3. I will render my font into a texture atlas and then generate some display lists for some text I want to draw. I would like the rendering of text to consume the least amount of resources (CPU, GPU memory, GPU time). How can I accomplish this?
Looking at Freetype-gl, I noticed that the author generates 6 indices and 4 vertices per character.
Since I am using OpenGL 3.3, I have some additional freedom. My plan was to generate 1 vertex per character plus one integer "code" per character. The character code can be used in texelFetch operations to retrieve texture coördinates and character size information. A geometry shader turns the size information and vertex into a triangle strip.
Is texelFetch going to be slower than sending more vertices/texture coördinates? Is this worth doing?, or is there are reason why it's not done in the font libraries I looked at?
Final code:
Vertex shader:
#version 330
uniform sampler2D font_atlas;
uniform sampler1D code_to_texture;
uniform mat4 projection;
uniform vec2 vertex_offset; // in view space.
uniform vec4 color;
uniform float gamma;
in vec2 vertex; // vertex in view space of each character adjusted for kerning, etc.
in int code;
out vec4 v_uv;
void main()
{
v_uv = texelFetch(
code_to_texture,
code,
0);
gl_Position = projection * vec4(vertex_offset + vertex, 0.0, 1.0);
}
Geometry shader:
#version 330
layout (points) in;
layout (triangle_strip, max_vertices = 4) out;
uniform sampler2D font_atlas;
uniform mat4 projection;
in vec4 v_uv[];
out vec2 g_uv;
void main()
{
vec4 pos = gl_in[0].gl_Position;
vec4 uv = v_uv[0];
vec2 size = vec2(textureSize(font_atlas, 0)) * (uv.zw - uv.xy);
vec2 pos_opposite = pos.xy + (mat2(projection) * size);
gl_Position = vec4(pos.xy, 0, 1);
g_uv = uv.xy;
EmitVertex();
gl_Position = vec4(pos.x, pos_opposite.y, 0, 1);
g_uv = uv.xw;
EmitVertex();
gl_Position = vec4(pos_opposite.x, pos.y, 0, 1);
g_uv = uv.zy;
EmitVertex();
gl_Position = vec4(pos_opposite.xy, 0, 1);
g_uv = uv.zw;
EmitVertex();
EndPrimitive();
}
Fragment shader:
#version 330
uniform sampler2D font_atlas;
uniform vec4 color;
uniform float gamma;
in vec2 g_uv;
layout (location = 0) out vec4 fragment_color;
void main()
{
float a = texture(font_atlas, g_uv).r;
fragment_color.rgb = color.rgb;
fragment_color.a = color.a * pow(a, 1.0 / gamma);
}
I wouldn't expect there to be a significant performance difference between your proposed method vs storing the quad vertex positions and texture coordinates in a vertex buffer. On the one hand your method requires a smaller vertex buffer and less work for the CPU. On the other hand the texelFetch calls will be more-or-less at random locations, and not make the best use of the cache. This last point may not be very significant as I guess that texture wont be very large. Also, the execution model of geometry shaders mean they can quickly become the bottleneck of the pipeline.
To answer "is this worth doing?" - I suspect not for performance reasons. Unfortunately you can't tell until you implement it and measure the performance. I think it's quite a cool idea though, so I don't think you'd be wasting your time trying it out.
Maybe you can use Atomic Counter to handle current position in text.
Here is an interresting paper on memory bandwidth
GPU perf...
You can cache the result in a fbo.
For realy fast rendering as you said, you may build a geom shader taking points as input and outputing quads and sample a texture to get additional on glyph info.
This appear effectively the best solution...
I am using OpenGL without the deprecated features and my light calculation is done on fragment shader. So, I am doing smooth shading.
My problem, is that when I am drawing a cube, I need flat normals. By flat normals I mean that every fragment generated in a face has the same normal.
My solution to this so far is to generate different vertices for each face. So, instead of having 8 vertices, now I have 24(6*4) vertices.
But this seems wrong to me, replicating the vertexes. Is there a better way to get flat normals?
Update: I am using OpenGL version 3.3.0, I do not have support for OpenGL 4 yet.
If you do the lighting in camera-space, you can use dFdx/dFdy to calculate the normal of the face from the camera-space position of the vertex.
So the fragment shader would look a little like this.
varying vec3 v_PositionCS; // Position of the vertex in camera/eye-space (passed in from the vertex shader)
void main()
{
// Calculate the face normal in camera space
vec3 normalCs = normalize(cross(dFdx(v_PositionCS), dFdy(v_PositionCS)));
// Perform lighting
...
...
}
Since a geometry shader can "see" all three vertices of a triangle at once, you can use a geometry shader to calculate the normals and send them to your fragment shader. This way, you don't have to duplicate vertices.
// Geometry Shader
#version 330
layout(triangles) in;
layout(triangle_strip, max_vertices = 3) out;
out vec3 gNormal;
// You will need to pass your untransformed positions in from the vertex shader
in vec3 vPosition[];
uniform mat3 normalMatrix;
void main()
{
vec3 side2 = vPosition[2] - vPosition[0];
vec3 side0 = vPosition[1] - vPosition[0];
vec3 facetNormal = normalize(normalMatrix * cross(side0, side2));
gNormal = facetNormal;
gl_Position = gl_in[0].gl_Position;
EmitVertex();
gNormal = facetNormal;
gl_Position = gl_in[1].gl_Position;
EmitVertex();
gNormal = facetNormal;
gl_Position = gl_in[2].gl_Position;
EmitVertex();
EndPrimitive();
}
Another option would be to pass MV-matrix and the unrotated AxisAligned coordinate to the fragment shader:
attribute aCoord;
varying vCoord;
void main() {
vCoord = aCoord;
glPosition = aCoord * MVP;
}
At Fragment shader one can then identify the normal by calculating the dominating axis of vCoord, setting that to 1.0 (or -1.0) and the other coordinates to zero -- that is the normal, which has to be rotated by the MV -matrix.