I am trying to render rounded triangles to increase performance. To illustrate what I mean, see the picture below:
I tried in the CPU, now is there a way to move this algorithm somehow to the GPU? I can change the method's code that calls the fragment shader?
By the way if I can do it, then what programming language I need to re-make it to?
I am using an OpenGL 2.1 GPU with just 20GB-30GB memory bandwidth.
Read the paper Resolution Independent Curve Rendering using Programmable Graphics Hardware by Charles Loop and Jim Blinn.
Short version: assuming you have an efficient inside/outside test for your curve, render the enclosing hull shape as triangle(s), use a fragment shader to discard the pixels outside the curve.
Second the concern by Aeluned that transferring the algorithm to the GPU won't automatically make it faster.
I'm not sure exactly what you're up to, but it seems a bit dubious. You can actually end up hurting performance trying to do some of these custom calculations in a shader to render a circle or ellipse.
Modern GPU hardware can push billions of triangles a second. You're probably splitting hairs here.
In any case, if you want to 'fake' the geometry, this may be of interest to you: https://alfonse.bitbucket.io/oldtut/Illumination/Tutorial%2013.html
Well on OpenGL 2.1 you do not have geometry shaders (3.2+) so you can forget about GPU.
You can not improve rasterizing performance of convex shapes by your curved triangles
complexity of rasterization of any convex polygon is the same as any triangle of the same area
the difference is only in:
number of passing vertexes
memory transfer
with geometry shader this will be better with your triangles usage
number of boundary lines
boundary lines rasterization for filling
will be worse with your triangles usage
(need to join more triangles instead of single shape polygon)
So its not a good idea to implement this for better performance in your case.
The only thing i can think of to use this for is to ease up manual generation of shapes.
In that case just write a function glRoundedTriangle(....)
which generate the correct vertexes,colors,normals,texture coordinates from given input parameters.
how it would looked like is unknown because you did not specify the rounded triangle geometry/shape and/or input parameters (for example 3 points + 3 signed curve radiuses ?)
To improve performance in OpenGL use VBO/VAO
Related
I have been researching different approaches to terrain systems in game engines for a bit now, trying to familiarize myself with the work. A number of the details seem straightforward, but I am getting hung up on a single detail.
For performance reasons many terrain solutions utilize shaders to generate parts or all of the geometry, such as vertex shaders to generate positions or tessellation shaders for LoD. At first I figured those approaches were exclusively for renders that weren't concerned about physics simulations.
The reason I say that is because as I understand shaders at the moment, the results of a shader computation generally are discarded at the end of the frame. So if you rely on shaders heavily then the geometry information will be gone before you could access it and send it off to another system (such as physics running on the CPU).
So, am I wrong about shaders? Can you store the results of them generating geometry to be accessed by other systems? Or am I forced to keep the terrain geometry on CPU and leave the shaders to the other details?
Shaders
You understand parts of the shaders correctly, that is: after a frame, the data is stored as a final composed image in the backbuffer.
BUT: Using transform feedback it is possible to capture transformed geometry into a vertex buffer and reuse it. Transform Feedback happens AFTER the vertex/geometry/tessellation shader, so you could use the geometry shader to generate a terrain (or visible parts of it once), push it through transform-feedback and store it.
This way, you potentially could use CPU collision detection with your terrain! You can even combine this with tessellation.
You will love this: A Framework for Real-Time, Deformable Terrain.
For the LOD and tessellation: LOD is not the prerequisite of tessellation. You can use tessellation to allow some more sophisticated effects such as adding a detail by recursive subdivision of rough geometry. Linking it with LOD is simply a very good optimization avoiding RAM-memory based LOD-mesh-levels, since you just have your "base mesh" and subdivide it (Although this will be an unsatisfying optimization imho).
Now some deeper info on GPU and CPU exclusive terrain.
GPU Generated Terrain (Procedural)
As written in the NVidia article Generating Complex Procedural Terrains Using the GPU:
1.2 Marching Cubes and the Density Function Conceptually, the terrain surface can be completely described by a single function, called the
density function. For any point in 3D space (x, y, z), the function
produces a single floating-point value. These values vary over
space—sometimes positive, sometimes negative. If the value is
positive, then that point in space is inside the solid terrain.
If the value is negative, then that point is located in empty space
(such as air or water). The boundary between positive and negative
values—where the density value is zero—is the surface of the terrain.
It is along this surface that we wish to construct a polygonal mesh.
Using Shaders
The density function used for generating the terrain, must be available for the collision-detection shader and you have to fill an output buffer containing the collision locations, if any...
CUDA
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYzxf3ugcg0
Here someone used CUDA, based on the NVidia article, which however implies the same:
In CUDA, performing collision detection, the density function must be shared.
This will however make the transform feedback techniques a little harder to implement.
Both, Shaders and CUDA, imply resampling/recalculation of the density at at least one location, just for the collision detection of a single object.
CPU Terrain
Usually, this implies a RAM-memory stored set of geometry in the form of vertex/index-buffer pairs, which are regularly processed by the shader-pipeline. As you have the data available here, you will also most likely have a collision mesh, which is a simplified representation of your terrain, against which you perform collision.
Alternatively you could spend your terrain a set of colliders, marking the allowed paths, which is imho performed in the early PS1 Final Fantasy games (which actually don't really have a terrain in the sense we understand terrain today).
This short answer is neither extensively deep nor complete. I just tried to give you some insight into some concepts used in dozens of solutions.
Some more reading: http://prideout.net/blog/?tag=opengl-transform-feedback.
I need to accelerate some programs that use intensive calculations where surface calculations from the intersection between cubes, spheres and similar are needed. Using CUDA I need to specify all the formuale I need, of course, in order to analytically calculate information related to intersections. But since I only need a good approximation of the resulting surface, I read about OpenGL can calculate or estimate such surfaces. I wonder if you could give me your opinion or point me to relevant references
If you just need to render those objects, you could use the stencil buffer to evaluate whatever boolean operations you need: http://www.opengl.org/resources/code/samples/advanced/advanced97/notes/node11.html
Any quantities that could be computed from either a perspective or orthographic projection of the intersection surface could be deduced from such a rendering together with its depth buffer. If you need to extract the whole intersection, you can try using depth peeling together with stencilled CSG to extract a layered representation of the complete intersection, though it can be very inaccurate on the parts of the surface which are parallel to the viewing direction and you will need to do some extra work to stitch the layers back together:
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10/opengl/src/dual_depth_peeling/doc/DualDepthPeeling.pdf
EDIT: This will work for arbitrary, free form surfaces and is a fairly standard technique. But it does have its limitations, in that the accuracy you get will be fairly poor and you may have to project onto multiple views in order to get some adequate covering of your object. As an example, here is an application to collision detection: http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/b.spanlang/ISBCICSOWH.pdf
OpenGL is of even less use here than CUDA or OpenCL, since it's primarily targeted at drawing triangular tesselated meshes. Of course you can do sophisticated geometrical computations in the various shader stages of modern OpenGL. The problem is, that the result of all those computations is a pixel based picture. There is a feedback mechanism to retrieve the processed vertex data, but that only gives you a mesh.
Intersections of anything planar or/and with spheres is actually quite easy and can be done analytically. The real hard stuff is intersecting freeform curved surfaces (Bezìer or NURBS). Those usually don't have a closed solution, so what you need to do is numerically aproximating a trim curve that best fits the intersection.
I've been using OpenGL since some time now for making 3D applications, but I never really understood the use of the GL_POINT and GL_LINES primitive drawing types for 3D games in the production phase.
(Where) are point and line primitives in OpenGL still used in modern games?
You know, OpenGL is not just for games and there are other kind of programs than just games. Think CAD programs, or map editors, where wireframes are still very usefull.
GL_POINTS are used in games for point sprites (either via the pointsprite functionality or by generating a quad from a point in the geometry shader) both for "sparkle" effects and volumetric clouds.
They are also used in some special algorithms just when, well... when points are needed. Such as in building histograms in the geometry shader as by the chapter in one of the later GPU Gems books. Or, for GPU instance culling via transform feedback.
GL_LINES have little use in games (mostly useful for CAD or modelling apps). Besides not being needed often, if they are needed, you will normally want lines with a thickness greater than 1, which is not well supported (read as: fast) on all implementations.
In such a case, one usually draws thick lines with triangle strips.
Who ever said those primitives were used in modern games?
GL_LINES is critical for wireframe views in 3D modeling tools.
(Where) are point and line primitives in OpenGL still used in modern games?
Where do you want them to be used?
Under standard methods, points can be used to build point sprites, which are 2D flatcards that always face the camera and are of a particular size. They are always square in window-space. Sadly, the OpenGL specification makes using them somewhat dubious, as point sprites are clipped based on the center of the point, not the size of the two triangles that are used to render it.
Lines are perfectly reasonable for line drawing. Once upon a time, lines weren't available in consumer hardware, but they have been around for many years now. Of course, antialiased line rendering (GL_LINE_SMOOTH) is another matter.
More importantly is the interaction of these things with geometry shaders. You can convert points into a quad. Or a triangle. Or whatever you want, really. Each "point" is just an execution of the geometry shader. You can have points which contain the position and radius of a sphere, and the geometry shader can output a window-aligned quad that is the appropriate size for the fragment shader to do some raytracing logic on it.
GL_POINTS just means "one vertex per geometry shader". GL_LINES means "two vertices per geometry shader." How you use it is up to you.
I'd say for debugging purposes, but that is just from my own perspective.
Some primitives can be used in areas where you don't think they can be applied, such as a particle system.
I agree with Pompe de velo about lines being useful for debugging. They can be useful when debugging AI and collision detection algorithms so that you can visualize the data that is being used by the AI or collision detection. Some example uses for AI, the lines can be used to show AI paths or path meshes. Lines can be used to show steering data that the AI is using. Lines can be used to show what an AI is aiming at. The data that is shown can be displayed in text form but sometimes it is easier to see it in visual form.
In most cases particles are based on GL_POINT, considering that there can be a huge number of particles on the screen it would be very expensive to use 4 vertices per particle, so GL_POINT solves this problem
GL_LINES good for debugging purposes, wireframe mode can be used in various cases. As mentioned above - in CAD apps, but if you're interesed in gamedev use - it's good for a scene editor.
In terms of collision detection, they come in handy when you want to visualize bounding volumes(boxes,spheres,k-dops) and contact manifolds in wireframe mode. Setting the colour of these primitives based on the status of collisions as well is incredibly useful.
I have a program in which I need to apply a 2-dimensional texture (simple image) to a surface generated using the marching-cubes algorithm. I have access to the geometry and can add texture coordinates with relative ease, but the best way to generate the coordinates is eluding me.
Each point in the volume represents a single unit of data, and each unit of data may have different properties. To simplify things, I'm looking at sorting them into "types" and assigning each type a texture (or portion of a single large texture atlas).
My problem is I have no idea how to generate the appropriate coordinates. I can store the location of the type's texture in the type class and use that, but then seams will be horribly stretched (if two neighboring points use different parts of the atlas). If possible, I'd like to blend the textures on seams, but I'm not sure the best manner to do that. Blending is optional, but I need to texture the vertices in some fashion. It's possible, but undesirable, to split the geometry into parts for each type, or to duplicate vertices for texturing purposes.
I'd like to avoid using shaders if possible, but if necessary I can use a vertex and/or fragment shader to do the texture blending. If I do use shaders, what would be the most efficient way of telling it was texture or portion to sample? It seems like passing the type through a parameter would be the simplest way, but possible slow.
My volumes are relatively small, 8-16 points in each dimension (I'm keeping them smaller to speed up generation, but there are many on-screen at a given time). I briefly considered making the isosurface twice the resolution of the volume, so each point has more vertices (8, in theory), which may simplify texturing. It doesn't seem like that would make blending any easier, though.
To build the surfaces, I'm using the Visualization Library for OpenGL and its marching cubes and volume system. I have the geometry generated fine, just need to figure out how to texture it.
Is there a way to do this efficiently, and if so what? If not, does anyone have an idea of a better way to handle texturing a volume?
Edit: Just to note, the texture isn't simply a gradient of colors. It's actually a texture, usually with patterns. Hence the difficulty in mapping it, a gradient would've been trivial.
Edit 2: To help clarify the problem, I'm going to add some examples. They may just confuse things, so consider everything above definite fact and these just as help if they can.
My geometry is in cubes, always (loaded, generated and saved in cubes). If shape influences possible solutions, that's it.
I need to apply textures, consisting of patterns and/or colors (unique ones depending on the point's "type") to the geometry, in a technique similar to the splatting done for terrain (this isn't terrain, however, so I don't know if the same techniques could be used).
Shaders are a quick and easy solution, although I'd like to avoid them if possible, as I mentioned before. Something usable in a fixed-function pipeline is preferable, mostly for the minor increase in compatibility and development time. Since it's only a minor increase, I will go with shaders and multipass rendering if necessary.
Not sure if any other clarification is necessary, but I'll update the question as needed.
On the texture combination part of the question:
Have you looked into 3d textures? As we're talking marching cubes I should probably immediately say that I'm explicitly not talking about volumetric textures. Instead you stack all your 2d textures into a 3d texture. You then encode each texture coordinate to be the 2d position it would be and the texture it would reference as the third coordinate. It works best if your textures are generally of the type where, logically, to transition from one type of pattern to another you have to go through the intermediaries.
An obvious use example is texture mapping to a simple height map — you might have a snow texture on top, a rocky texture below that, a grassy texture below that and a water texture at the bottom. If a vertex that references the water is next to one that references the snow then it is acceptable for the geometry fill to transition through the rock and grass texture.
An alternative is to do it in multiple passes using additive blending. For each texture, draw every face that uses that texture and draw a fade to transparent extending across any faces that switch from one texture to another.
You'll probably want to prep the depth buffer with a complete draw (with the colour masks all set to reject changes to the colour buffer) then switch to a GL_EQUAL depth test and draw again with writing to the depth buffer disabled. Drawing exactly the same geometry through exactly the same transformation should produce exactly the same depth values irrespective of issues of accuracy and precision. Use glPolygonOffset if you have issues.
On the coordinates part:
Popular and easy mappings are cylindrical, box and spherical. Conceptualise that your shape is bounded by a cylinder, box or sphere with a well defined mapping from surface points to texture locations. Then for each vertex in your shape, start at it and follow the normal out until you strike the bounding geometry. Then grab the texture location that would be at that position on the bounding geometry.
I guess there's a potential problem that normals tend not to be brilliant after marching cubes, but I'll wager you know more about that problem than I do.
This is a hard and interesting problem.
The simplest way is to avoid the issue completely by using 3D texture maps, especially if you just want to add some random surface detail to your isosurface geometry. Perlin noise based procedural textures implemented in a shader work very well for this.
The difficult way is to look into various algorithms for conformal texture mapping (also known as conformal surface parametrization), which aim to produce a mapping between 2D texture space and the surface of the 3D geometry which is in some sense optimal (least distorting). This paper has some good pictures. Be aware that the topology of the geometry is very important; it's easy to generate a conformal mapping to map a texture onto a closed surface like a brain, considerably more complex for higher genus objects where it's necessary to introduce cuts/tears/joins.
You might want to try making a UV Map of a mesh in a tool like Blender to see how they do it. If I understand your problem, you have a 3D field which defines a solid volume as well as a (continuous) color. You've created a mesh from the volume, and now you need to UV-map the mesh to a 2D texture with texels extracted from the continuous color space. In a tool you would define "seams" in the 3D mesh which you could cut apart so that the whole mesh could be laid flat to make a UV map. There may be aliasing in your texture at the seams, so when you render the mesh it will also be discontinuous at those seams (ie a triangle strip can't cross over the seam because it's a discontinuity in the texture).
I don't know any formal methods for flattening the mesh, but you could imagine cutting it along the seams and then treating the whole thing as a spring/constraint system that you drop onto a flat surface. I'm all about solving things the hard way. ;-)
Due to the issues with texturing and some of the constraints I have, I've chosen to write a different algorithm to build the geometry and handle texturing directly in that as it produces surfaces. It's somewhat less smooth than the marching cubes, but allows me to apply the texcoords in a way that works for my project (and is a bit faster).
For anyone interested in texturing marching cubes, or just blending textures, Tommy's answer is a very interesting technique and the links timday posted are excellent resources on flattening meshes for texturing. Thanks to both of them for their answers, hopefully they can be of use to others. :)
I would like to draw voxels by using opengl but it doesn't seem like it is supported. I made a cube drawing function that had 24 vertices (4 vertices per face) but it drops the frame rate when you draw 2500 cubes. I was hoping there was a better way. Ideally I would just like to send a position, edge size, and color to the graphics card. I'm not sure if I can do this by using GLSL to compile instructions as part of the fragment shader or vertex shader.
I searched google and found out about point sprites and billboard sprites (same thing?). Could those be used as an alternative to drawing a cube quicker? If I use 6, one for each face, it seems like that would be sending much less information to the graphics card and hopefully gain me a better frame rate.
Another thought is maybe I can draw multiple cubes using one drawelements call?
Maybe there is a better method altogether that I don't know about? Any help is appreciated.
Drawing voxels with cubes is almost always the wrong way to go (the exceptional case is ray-tracing). What you usually want to do is put the data into a 3D texture and render slices depending on camera position. See this page: https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems/gpugems_ch39.html and you can find other techniques by searching for "volume rendering gpu".
EDIT: When writing the above answer I didn't realize that the OP was, most likely, interested in how Minecraft does that. For techniques to speed-up Minecraft-style rasterization check out Culling techniques for rendering lots of cubes. Though with recent advances in graphics hardware, rendering Minecraft through raytracing may become the reality.
What you're looking for is called instancing. You could take a look at glDrawElementsInstanced and glDrawArraysInstanced for a couple of possibilities. Note that these were only added as core operations relatively recently (OGL 3.1), but have been available as extensions quite a while longer.
nVidia's OpenGL SDK has an example of instanced drawing in OpenGL.
First you really should be looking at OpenGL 3+ using GLSL. This has been the standard for quite some time. Second, most Minecraft-esque implementations use mesh creation on the CPU side. This technique involves looking at all of the block positions and creating a vertex buffer object that renders the triangles of all of the exposed faces. The VBO is only generated when the voxels change and is persisted between frames. An ideal implementation would combine coplanar faces of the same texture into larger faces.