I'm using ES 3.0 (basically GL 3.3 without geometry shaders) to be able to port my programs to almost everything
My helpful framework/wrapper written on C++. Basically its everything what can be found inside of quick reference card: Buffer/Shader/ShaderProgram/Framebuffer/Texture/etc. (pretty basic stuff, I do believe everyone have classes like that)
I noticed that when I need to draw a basic shapes such as full-screen quad, triangles, spheres I always doing it in-place, its not a part of my framework. And I kinda hate it, because I'm repeating myself again and again. It is really unpleasant thing to do
How aesthetically and technically right I can add such a functionality to my framework?
(in advance: for platforms like android context loss is possible, so pause/restore mechanism required)
SFML has similar functionality. Here's its structural frame:
class Drawable {
friend class RenderTarget;
protected: // hidden from everyone but subclasses and RenderTarget
virtual void draw(RenderTarget&) const = 0;
};
class RenderTarget {
public:
void draw(Drawable& drawable) {
drawable.draw(*this);
}
};
class RectangleShape : public Drawable {
protected:
void draw(RenderTarget&) const override {
// the algorithm
}
};
void use() {
RectangleShape shape;
RenderTarget& target = get();
target.draw(shape);
}
(Actually it's more complicated: I omitted virtual destructors, unnecessary inheritance levels etc.)
Currently, I am learning c++ and just for fun, I wanted to code a little chess game (without an AI of course). I use visual studio community aside and SFML 2.5 as a renderer and for graphical objects. I tried to make a model called "figure" for all figures. So I have a figure class that inherits from sfml sprite (a drawable) and a pawn class f.e. that inherits from the figure. Sf:: sprite -> figure-> pawn/queen/tower etc... but for some reason, I can't use the pawn as a sprite, for example, I can't draw it with the draw function of my windowRenderer.
But the function documentation says it requires a drawable object. I get an error message that says something like: the conversation in the base class that is not accessible is not valid. Have I done something wrong or is it not possible to use a sprite like this. Here are my constructors because I think I its most likely I made an error there. I have only coded in java so far so the separation into header and implementation file is a little foreign for me also the constructor syntax is different.
figure.h:
class figure : sf::Sprite {
public:
figure(int startPosition);
void changeImage(std::string);
void dissapear();
void loadImage(std::string);
private:
sf::Image img;
};
figure.cpp:
figure::figure(int startPosition):sf::Sprite(){
}
pawn.h:
class pawn :
public figure
{
public:
pawn(int startPosition);
~pawn();
private:
void move(bool canBeat, bool isAsStart);
};
pawn.cpp:
pawn::pawn(int startPosition):figure (startPosition)
{
}
in main.cpp:
pawn pawn1(position);
sf::RenderWindow window(sf::VideoMode(sets.windowX, sets.windowY), "frame");
window.draw(pawn1);
Try this
class figure : public sf::Sprite
Inheritence for classes is private by default.
I picked up using SFML recently, and I decided as a learning experience I would make a pong clone using it. I've defined a class called Ball which draws uses SFML to draw a RectangleShape. When I try to draw this custom type to the screen with the window.draw() function however, I get errors because Ball isn't an sf::Drawable. I would appreciate help with this, being new to SFML.
To use window.draw(object) object's class must inherit the drawable interface and implement the abstract sf::Drawable::draw function.
It sounds like the sf::RectangleShape is a member of Ball. SFML knows how to render the shape, but not Ball itself. Ball's class declaration should look like this:
class Ball : public sf::Drawable //,...
{
//...
private:
virtual void draw(sf::RenderTarget& target, sf::RenderStates states) const;
//...
};
And draw should be implemented like this:
void Ball::draw(sf::RenderTarget& target, sf::RenderStates states) const
{
//assuming m_shape is the sf::RectangleShape
target.draw(m_shape, states);
}
I'm trying to write a class (some sort of graphics engine) basically it's purpose is to render ANYTHING that I pass into it. In most tutorials I've seen, objects draw themselves. I'm not sure if that's how things are supposed to work. I've been searching the internet trying to come up with different ways to handle this problem, I've been reviewing function templates and class templates over and over again (which sounds like the solution I could be looking for) but when I try using templates, it just seems messy to me (possibly because I don't fully understand how to use them) and then I'll feel like taking the template class down, then I'll give it a second try but then I just take it down again, I'm not sure if that's the way to go but it might be. Originally it was tiled-based only (including a movable player on screen along with a camera system), but now I've trying to code up a tile map editor which has things such as tool bars, lists, text, possibly even primitives on screen in the future, etc. and I'm wondering how I will draw all those elements onto the screen with a certain procedure (the procedure isn't important right now, I'll find that out later). If any of you were going to write a graphics engine class, how would you have it distinguish different types of graphic objects from one another, such as a primitive not being drawn as a sprite or a sphere primitive not being drawn as a triangle primitive, etc.? Any help would be appreciated. :)
This is the header for it, it's not functional right now because I've been doing some editing on it, Just ignore the part where I'm using the "new" keyword, I'm still learning that, but I hope this gives an idea for what I'm trying to accomplish:
//graphicsEngine.h
#pragma once
#include<allegro5\allegro.h>
#include<allegro5\allegro_image.h>
#include<allegro5\allegro_primitives.h>
template <class graphicObjectData>
class graphicsEngine
{
public:
static graphicObjectData graphicObject[];
static int numObjects;
static void setup()
{
al_init_image_addon();
al_init_primitives_addon();
graphicObject = new graphicObjectData [1]; //ignore this line
}
template <class graphicObjectData> static void registerObject(graphicObjectData &newGraphicObject) //I'm trying to use a template function to take any type of graphic object
{
graphicObject[numObjects] = &newObject;
numObjects++;
}
static void process() //This is the main process where EVERYTHING is supposed be drawn
{
int i;
al_clear_to_color(al_map_rgb(0,0,0));
for (i=0;i<numObjects;i++) drawObject(graphicObject[i]);
al_flip_display();
}
};
I am a huge fan of templates, but you may find in this case that they are cumbersome (though not necessarily the wrong answer). Since it appears you may be wanting diverse object types in your drawing container, inheritance may actually be a stronger solution.
You will want a base type which provides an abstract interface for drawing. All this class needs is some function which provides a mechanism for the actual draw process. It does not actually care how drawing occurs, what's important is that the deriving class knows how to draw itself (if you want to separate your drawing and your objects, keep reading and I will try to explain a way to accomplish this):
class Drawable {
public:
// This is our interface for drawing. Simply, we just need
// something to instruct our base class to draw something.
// Note: this method is pure virtual so that is must be
// overriden by a deriving class.
virtual void draw() = 0;
// In addition, we need to also give this class a default virtual
// destructor in case the deriving class needs to clean itself up.
virtual ~Drawable() { /* The deriving class might want to fill this in */ }
};
From here, you would simply write new classes which inherit from the Drawable class and provide the necessary draw() override.
class Circle : public Drawable {
public:
void draw() {
// Do whatever you need to make this render a circle.
}
~Circle() { /* Do cleanup code */ }
};
class Tetrahedron : public Drawable {
public:
void draw() {
// Do whatever you need to make this render a tetrahedron.
}
~Tetrahedron() { /* Do cleanup code */ }
};
class DrawableText : public Drawable {
public:
std::string _text;
// Just to illustrate that the state of the deriving class
// could be variable and even dependent on other classes:
DrawableText(std::string text) : _text(text) {}
void draw() {
// Yet another override of the Drawable::draw function.
}
~DrawableText() {
// Cleanup here again - in this case, _text will clean itself
// up so nothing to do here. You could even omit this since
// Drawable provides a default destructor.
}
};
Now, to link all these objects together, you could simply place them in a container of your choosing which accepts references or pointers (or in C++11 and greater, unique_ptr, shared_ptr and friends). Setup whatever draw context you need and loop through all the contents of the container calling draw().
void do_drawing() {
// This works, but consider checking out unique_ptr and shared_ptr for safer
// memory management
std::vector<Drawable*> drawable_objects;
drawable_objects.push_back(new Circle);
drawable_objects.push_back(new Tetrahedron);
drawable_objects.push_back(new DrawableText("Hello, Drawing Program!"));
// Loop through and draw our circle, tetrahedron and text.
for (auto drawable_object : drawable_objects) {
drawable_object->draw();
}
// Remember to clean up the allocations in drawable_objects!
}
If you would like to provide state information to your drawing mechanism, you can require that as a parameter in the draw() routine of the Drawable base class:
class Drawable {
public:
// Now takes parameters which hold program state
virtual void draw(DrawContext& draw_context, WorldData& world_data) = 0;
virtual ~Drawable() { /* The deriving class might want to fill this in */ }
};
The deriving classes Circle, Tetrahedron and DrawableText would, of course, need their draw() signatures updated to take the new program state, but this will allow you to do all of your low-level drawing through an object which is designed for graphics drawing instead of burdening the main class with this functionality. What state you provide is solely up to you and your design. It's pretty flexible.
BIG UPDATE - Another Way to Do It Using Composition
I've been giving it careful thought, and decided to share what I've been up to. What I wrote above has worked for me in the past, but this time around I've decided to go a different route with my engine and forego a scene graph entirely. I'm not sure I can recommend this way of doing things as it can make things complicated, but it also opens the doors to a tremendous amount of flexibility. Effectively, I have written lower-level objects such as VertexBuffer, Effect, Texture etc. which allow me to compose objects in any way I want. I am using templates this time around more than inheritance (though intheritance is still necessary for providing implementations for the VertexBuffers, Textures, etc.).
The reason I bring this up is because you were talking about getting a larger degree of seperation. Using a system such as I described, I could build a world object like this:
class World {
public:
WorldGeometry geometry; // Would hold triangle data.
WorldOccluder occluder; // Runs occlusion tests against
// the geometry and flags what's visible and
// what is not.
WorldCollider collider; // Handles all routines for collision detections.
WorldDrawer drawer; // Draws the world geometry.
void process_and_draw();// Optionally calls everything in necessary
// order.
};
Here, i would have multiple objects which focus on a single aspect of my engine's processing. WorldGeometry would store all polygon details about this particular world object. WorldOccluder would do checks against the camera and geometry to see which patches of the world are actually visible. WorldCollider would process collission detection against any world objects (omitted for brevity). Finally, WorldDrawer would actually be responsible for the drawing of the world and maintain the VertexBuffer and other lower-level drawing objects as needed.
As you can see, this works a little more closely to what you originally asked as the geometry is actually not used only for rendering. It's more data on the polygons of the world but can be fed to WorldGeometry and WorldOccluder which don't do any drawing whatsoever. In fact, the World class only exists to group these similar classes together, but the WorldDrawer may not be dependent on a World object. Instead, it may need a WorldGeometry object or even a list of Triangles. Basically, your program structure becomes highly flexible and dependencies begin to disappear since objects do not inherit often or at all and only request what they absolutely require to function. Case in point:
class WorldOccluder {
public:
// I do not need anything more than a WorldGeometry reference here //
WorldOccluder(WorldGeometry& geometry) : _geometry(geometry)
// At this point, all I need to function is the position of the camera //
WorldOccluderResult check_occlusion(const Float3& camera) {
// Do all of the world occlusion checks based on the passed
// geometry and then return a WorldOccluderResult
// Which hypothetically could contain lists for visible and occluded
// geometry
}
private:
WorldGeometry& _geometry;
};
I chose the WorldOccluder as an example because I've spent the better part of the day working on something like this for my engine and have used a class hierarchy much like above. I've got boxes in 3D space changing colors based on if they should be seen or not. My classes are very succinct and easy to follow, and my entire project hierarchy is easy to follow (I think it is anyway). So this seems to work just fine! I love being on vacation!
Final note: I mentioned templates but didn't explain them. If I have an object that does processing around drawing, a template works really well for this. It avoids dependencies (such as through inheritence) while still giving a great degree of flexibility. Additionally, templates can be optimized by the compiler by inlining code and avoiding virtual-style calls (if the compiler can deduce such optimizations):
template <typename TEffect, TDrawable>
void draw(TEffect& effect, TDrawable& drawable, const Matrix& world, const Matrix& view, const Matrix& projection) {
// Setup effect matrices - our effect template
// must provide these function signatures
effect.world(world);
effect.view(view);
effect.projection(projection);
// Do some drawing!
// (NOTE: could use some RAII stuff here in case drawable throws).
effect.begin();
for (int pass = 0; pass < effect.pass_count(); pass++) {
effect.begin_pass(pass);
drawable.draw(); // Once again, TDrawable objects must provide this signature
effect.end_pass(pass);
}
effect.end();
}
My technique might really suck, but I do it like this.
class entity {
public:
virtual void render() {}
};
vector<entity> entities;
void render() {
for(auto c : entities) {
c->render();
}
}
Then I can do stuff like this:
class cubeEntity : public entity {
public:
virtual void render() override {
drawCube();
}
};
class triangleEntity : public entity {
public:
virtual void render() override {
drawTriangle();
}
};
And to use it:
entities.push_back(new cubeEntity());
entities.push_back(new triangleEntity());
People say that it's bad to use dynamic inheritance. They're a lot smarter than me, but this approach has been working fine for a while. Make sure to make all your destructors virtual!
The way the SFML graphics library draws objects (and the way I think is most manageable) is to have all drawable objects inherit from a 'Drawable' class (like the one in David Peterson's answer), which can then be passed to the graphics engine in order to be drawn.
To draw objects, I'd have:
A Base class:
class Drawable
{
int XPosition;
int YPosition;
int PixelData[100][100]; //Or whatever storage system you're using
}
This can be used to contain information common to all drawable classes (like position, and some form of data storage).
Derived Subclasses:
class Triangle : public Drawable
{
Triangle() {} //overloaded constructors, additional variables etc
int indigenous_to_triangle;
}
Because each subclass is largely unique, you can use this method to create anything from sprites to graphical-primitives.
Each of these derived classes can then be passed to the engine by reference with
A 'Draw' function referencing the Base class:
void GraphicsEngine::draw(const Drawable& _object);
Using this method, a template is no longer necessary. Unfortunately your current graphicObjectData array wouldn't work, because derived classes would be 'sliced' in order to fit in it. However, creating a list or vector of 'const Drawable*' pointers (or preferably, smart pointers) would work just as well for keeping tabs on all your objects, though the actual objects would have to be stored elsewhere.
You could use something like this to draw everything using a vector of pointers (I tried to preserve your function and variable names):
std::vector<const Drawable*> graphicObject; //Smart pointers would be better here
static void process()
{
for (int i = 0; i < graphicObject.size(); ++i)
draw(graphicObject[i]);
}
You'd just have to make sure you added each object to the list as it was created.
If you were clever about it, you could even do this in the construction and destruction:
class Drawable; //So the compiler doesn't throw an error
std::vector<const Drawable*> graphicObject;
class Drawable
{
Triangle() {} //overloaded constructors, additional variables etc
int indigenous_to_triangle;
std::vector<const Drawable*>::iterator itPos;
Drawable() {
graphicObject.push_back(this);
itPos = graphicObject.end() - 1;
}
~Drawable() {
graphicObject.erase(itPos);
}
}
Now you can just create objects and they'll be drawn automatically when process() is called! And they'll even be removed from the list once they're destroyed!
All the above ideas have served me well in the past, so I hope I've helped you out, or at least given you something to think about.
I'm now writing a Direct3D renderer for our engine.
Here's the problem:
In OpenGL, I can just easily call glClearColor() to clear.
In Direct3D, I need to use g_pd3dDevice just to call ClearRenderTargetView() to clear.
The design of our engine is like this:
class Renderer
{
// ...
}
class Direct3dWin32 : public Renderer
{
private ID3D10Device* g_pd3dDevice;
}
class OpenGLWin32 : public Renderer
{
// Nothing, I can call a function easily without relying on something
}
The problem rises when my ShaderManager class wants to compile the shader. I need to use g_pd3dDevice which is on Direct3dWin32 class.
My question is, what is the best approach on solving this problem? I'm thinking of global variables, a singleton class, or just passing the class in function.
First of all, I can't help but notice g_pd3dDevice, that's not a global. It's a class member pointer to a COM interface of the device, ID3D10Device*, and it's not a global here, nor should it be.
And to answer your question as simple as possible (since it seems like a beginner engine/framework design issue), provide accessor methods which return a pointer to a working device from which it can be passed on further, where it needs to be employed.
A simple example to conform to your little "spec" upstairs:
class Direct3DWin32 : public Renderer
{
ID3D10Device* pD3DDevice;
public:
ID3D10Device* getD3DDevice();
}
Now, whenever you need it, you can just pass it around through functions when you get it from your Direct3DWin32 instance. There's a lot more to engine design than this and I personally wouldn't recommend this as a path to take, but that's a tale for another time and perhaps a series of books.
Note!
You can define the basic stuff like this, but if you really want to take the multiple render paths design to a proper level, you're going to have to introduce polymorphism, adding a nice level of abstraction. Then you can simply define a unified rendering interface that will do the right thing, whether the DirectX or the OpenGL rendering path is currently employed, instantiate a derived class and give its address to the pointer to its abstract base class which contains the specified interface everything conforms to. Then you can render obliviously to the underlying choice of API.
Hopefully this solves your current problem. Also, again, evade globals. And happy coding.
You could possibly use a variant of double dispatch (a.k.a. the visitor pattern):
class ShaderManager
{
public:
void compileShader(Renderer* r, Shader* s) { r->compileShader(this, s); }
void compileD3DShader(ID3D10Device* device, Shader*s);
void compileGLShader(Shader* s);
};
class Renderer
{
public:
virtual void compileShader(ShaderManager* m, Shader* s) = 0;
};
class Direct3dWin32 : public Renderer
{
private:
ID3D10Device* m_device;
public:
virtual void compileShader(ShaderManager* m, Shader* s)
{
m->compileD3DShader(m_device, s);
}
}
class OpenGLWin32 : public Renderer
{
public:
virtual void compileShader(ShaderManager* m, Shader* s)
{
m->compileGLShader(s);
}
}
(I'm not a huge fan of "getters".)
You should provide accessor methods for the variables you want to pass into another class.
For instance, in Direct3dWin32, you could have :
ID3d10Device* get_gpd3Device()
{
return g_pd3Device;
}
You can then pass this into OpenGLWin32:
void useDevice (ID3d10Device* aDevice)
{
// do work
}
Your application that uses both classes would then have responsibility for bridging the gap:
OpenGLWin32 openGL;
openGL.useDevice(direct3d.get_gpd3device());