I have a 2D VBO object that represent points in 2D space. What is the best way to draw an arbitrary shape at that point? Lets say I wanted to draw a red 'X' at each.
Can I use a shader to do this?
You don't neccessarily need a special shader for that, you might just use point sprites. This would basically mean to draw the VBO as a point set (using glDrawArrays(GL_POINTS, ...)) and enabling point sprites to draw a textured square (with a texture of the 'X') at the position of each point, assuming a point size of more than 1 pixel.
For actually generating geometry at the location of each point you could use the geometry shader. This way you also render the VBO as point set and generate two lines (the 'X') or whatever geometry for each point inside the geometry shader.
An alternative to the geometry shader are instanced arrays (requiring the same GL3/DX10 hardware as neccessary for geometry shaders). This way you draw multiple instances of the 'X' shape and source the instances' individual positions from the point VBO by using an attribute whose index is advanced once per instance.
The last alternative would be to generate the shapes' geometries manually on the CPU, so that you end up with a line set or a quad set conatining all the 'X's as lines or sprites or whatever.
But the easiest (and maybe fastest, not sure about that) way should be the point sprite approach mentioned first, as their usual clipping problems shouldn't be that much of a problem in your case and you don't seem to need 3d shapes anyway. This way you neither need to generate the geometry yourself on the CPU, nor do you need special shaders or GL3/DX10 hardware (although this is quite common nowadays). All you need is a texture of the shape and enable point sprites (which should be core since GL 1.5).
If all these general ideas don't tell you anything, you might want to delve a little deeper into OpenGL and real-time computer graphics in general.
Related
To draw a sphere, one does not need to know anything else but it's position and radius. Thus, rendering a sphere by passing a triangle mesh sounds very inefficient unless you need per-vertex colors or other such features. Despite googling, searching D3D11 documentation and reading Introduction to 3D Programming with DirectX 11, I failed to understand
Is it possible to draw a sphere by passing only the position and radius of it to the GPU?
If not, what is the main principle I have misunderstood?
If yes, how to do it?
My ultimate goal is to pass more parameters later on which will be used by a shader effect.
You will need to implement Geometry Shader. This shader should take Sphere center and radius as input and emit a banch of vertices for rasterization. In general this is called point sprites.
One option would be to use tessellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellation_(computer_graphics)
Most of the mess will be generated on the gpu side.
Note:
In the end you still have more parameters sent to the shaders because the sphere will be split into triangles that will be each rendered individually on the screen.
But the split is done on the gpu side.
While you can create a sphere from a point & vertex on the GPU, it's generally not very efficient. With higher-end GPUs you could use Hardware Tessellation, but even that would be better done a different way.
The better solution is to use instancing and render lots of the same VB/IB of sphere geometry scaled to different positions and sizes.
A cube with different colored faces in intermediate mode is very simple. But doing this same thing with shaders seems to be quite a challenge.
I have read that in order to create a cube with different coloured faces, I should create 24 vertices instead of 8 vertices for the cube - in other words, (I visualies this as 6 squares that don't quite touch).
Is perhaps another (better?) solution to texture the faces of the cube using a real simple texture a flat color - perhaps a 1x1 pixel texture?
My texturing idea seems simpler to me - from a coder's point of view.. but which method would be the most efficient from a GPU/graphic card perspective?
I'm not sure what your overall goal is (e.g. what you're learning to do in the long term), but generally for high performance applications (e.g. games) your goal is to reduce GPU load. Every time you switch certain states (e.g. change textures, render targets, shader uniform values, etc..) the GPU stalls reconfiguring itself to meet your demands.
So, you can pass in a 1x1 pixel texture for each face, but then you'd need six draw calls (usually not so bad, but there is some prep work and potential cache misses) and six texture sets (can be very bad, often as bad as changing shader uniform values).
Suppose you wanted to pass in one texture and use that as a texture map for the cube. This is a little less trivial than it sounds -- you need to express each texture face on the texture in a way that maps to the vertices. Often you need to pass in a texture coordinate for each vertex, and due to the spacial configuration of the texture this normally doesn't end up meaning one texture coordinate for one spatial vertex.
However, if you use an environmental/reflection map, the complexities of mapping are handled for you. In this way, you could draw a single texture on all sides of your cube. (Or on your sphere, or whatever sphere-mapped shape you wanted.) I'm not sure I'd call this easier since you have to form the environmental texture carefully, and you still have to set a different texture for each new colors you want to represent -- or change the texture either via the GPU or in step with the GPU, and that's tricky and usually not performant.
Which brings us back to the canonical way of doing as you mentioned: use vertex values -- they're fast, you can draw many, many cubes very quickly by only specifying different vertex data, and it's easy to understand. It really is the best way, and how GPUs are designed to run quickly.
Additionally..
And yes, you can do this with just shaders... But it'd be ugly and slow, and the GPU would end up computing it per each pixel.. Pass the object space coordinates to the fragment shader, and in the fragment shader test which side you're on and output the corresponding color. Highly not recommended, it's not particularly easier, and it's definitely not faster for the GPU -- to change colors you'd again end up changing uniform values for the shaders.
I'd like to render a vectorfield visualization with OpenGL. Right now, I have a 3D cube filled with points which I need to replace with arrows. I've read a lot about Point Sprites in OpenGL and they seem to fit my needs pretty good.
I haven't really worked with textures yet, so there are some questions regarding the use of them together with Point Sprites:
First of all, is it possible to easily replace my points with arrows by just using a texture? If so, is it possible to rotate or scale those point sprites by an arbitrary degree using shaders?
If there are other possibilites than point sprites for achieving this, it would also be great to hear about them. I'm using OpenGL 4.2.
Point sprites are always screen-aligned squares. And they have an implementation-dependent maximum size.
If you need to do something like this, you should use a Geometry Shader that takes points as inputs, and outputs a quad (as 4 vertices of a triangle strip). Then you can do whatever you want.
Note that you should try to pass as little information as you can get away with out of the GS. Ideally, for maximum performance, you should only output to gl_Position and to a vec2 indicating where in the quad a particular location is.
is it possible to ... scale those point sprites by an arbitrary degree using shaders?
No, point sprites have an implementation-defined upper limit on size.
First of all, I have very little knowledge of what shaders can do, and i am very interested in making vertex lighting. I am attempting to use a 3d colormap which would be used to calculate the vertex color at that position of the world, and also interpolate the color by using the nearby colors from the colormap.
I cant use typical OpenGL lighting because its probably too slow and theres a lot of lights i need to render. I am going to "render" the lights at the colormap first, and then i could either manually map every vertex drawn with the corresponding color from the colormap.
...Or i could somehow automate this process, so i wouldnt have to change the color values of vertexes myself, but a shader could perhaps do this for me?
Questions is... is this possible, and if it is: what i need to know to make it possible?
Edit: Note that i also need to update the lightmap efficiently, without caring about the size of the lightmap, so the update should be done only at that specific part of the lightmap i want to update.
It almost sounds like what you want to do is render the lights to your color map, then use your color map as a texture, but instead of decal mode set it to modulate mode, so it's multiplied with the existing color instead of just replacing it.
That is different in one way though: instead of just affecting the vertexes, it'll map to the individual fragments (pixels, in essence).
Edit: What I had in mind wasn't a 3D texture -- it was a cube map. Basically, create a virtual cube surrounding everything in your "world". Create a 2D texture for each face of that cube. Render your coloring to the cube map. Then, to color a vertex you (virtually) extend a ray outward from the center, through the vertex, to the cube. The pixel you hit on the cube map gives you the color of lighting for that vertex.
Updating should be relatively efficient -- you have normal 2D textures for the top, bottom, front, etc., and you update them as needed.
If you cant use the fixed function pipeline functionality the best way to do per vertex lighting should be to do all the lighting calculations per vertex in the vertex-shader, when you then pass it on the the fragment shader it will be correctly interpolated across the face.
Another way to deal with performances issues when using a lot of light sources is to use deferred rendering as it will only do lighting calculation on the geometry that is actually visible.
That is possible, but will not be effective on the current hardware.
You want to render light volumes into 3d texture. The rasterizer works on a 2D surface, so your volumes have to be split along one of the axises. The split can be done in one of the following ways:
Different draw calls for each split
Instanced draw, with layer selection based on glInstanceID (will require geometry shader)
Branch in geometry shader directly from a single draw call
In order to implement it, I would suggest reading GL-3 specification and examples. It's not going to be easy, nor it will be fast enough in the result for complex scenes.
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. :)