So from playing around with it so far, I gather that GLSL geometry shaders work after the input vertices are transformed by the projection/modelview matrices. In other words, the geometry shaders processes things on clip coordinate.
What if I was to use the geometry shader to transform GL_POINTS into, say, cubes made out of GL_TRIANGLES? When calculating things on clip coordinates, the resulting shape always seem to face you / ignore rotations/scaling etc.
Also, it seems that GL_TRIANGLES is not supported as one of the possible geometry output types. But I tried anyways, and it seems to work. I suppose this is video card dependent? Is it possible to make cubes if GL_TRIANGLES is not supported? Make zero width triangle strips in between spaces maybe??
You are using shaders: geometry shaders work on whatever the vertex shader passed them. If you want that to be clip-space values, then the geometry shader works on clip-space values. If your vertex shader passes them eye-space values, then the geometry shader must work on eye-space values.
What matters is what the final pre-rasterization shader stage outputs to gl_Position. That is what needs to be in homogeneous clip-space. A vertex shader that has a geometry shader behind it doesn't even need to write to gl_Position.
Also, it seems that GL_TRIANGLES is not supported as one of the possible geometry output types.
You must be using ARB_geometry_shader4, not the actual core geometry shader functionality. You probably should avoid that extension if you are able. Any hardware that has geometry shaders can run OpenGL 3.2.
In any case, the core feature doesn't support triangles as output. It supports points, line strips, and triangle strips.
Is it possible to make cubes if GL_TRIANGLES is not supported?
That's what EndPrimitive() is for. You call it when you are finished with a primitive; there's nothing that stops you from emitting a second primitive. Or third.
Also, you should be advised that this will probably be slow. Geometry shaders are not known for fast rendering performance.
Related
I can't understand concept of smaller shaders in OpenGL. How does it work? For example: do I need to create one shader for positioning object in space and then shader another shader for lighting or what? Could someone explain this to me? Thanks in advance.
This is a very complex topic, especially since your question isn't very specific. At first, there are various shader stages (vertex shader, pixel shader, and so on). A shader program consists of different shader stages, at least a pixel and a vertex shader (except for compute shader programs, which are each single compute shaders). The vertex shader calculates the possition of the points on screen, so here the objects are being moved. The pixel shader calculates the color of each pixel, that is covered by the rendered geometry your vertex shader produced. Now, in terms of lighting, there are different ways of doing it:
Forward Shading
This is the straight-forward way, where you simply calculate the lighting in pixel shader of the same shader program, that moves to objects. This is the oldest way of calculating lighting, and the easiest one. However, it's abilities are very limited.
Deffered Shading
For ages, this is the go-to variant in games. Here, you have one shader program (vertex + pixel shader) that renders the geometrie on one (or multiple) textures (so it moves the objects, but it doesn't save the lit color, but rather things like the base color and surface normals into the texture), and then an other shader program that renders a quad on screen for each light you want to render, the pixel shader of this shader program reads the informations previously rendered in the textur by the first shader program, and uses it to render the lit objects on an other textur (which is then the final image). In constrast to forward shading, this allows (in theory) any number of lights in the scene, and allows easier usage of shadow maps
Tiled/Clustered Shading
This is a rather new and very complex way of calculating lighting, that can be build on top of deffered or forward shading. It basicly uses compute shaders to calculate an accelleration-structure on the gpu, which is then used draw huge amount of lights very fast. This allows to render thousands of lights in a scene in real time, but using shadow maps for these lights is very hard, and the algorithm is way more complex then the previous ones.
Writing smaller shaders means to separate some of your shader functionalities in another files. Then if you are writing a big shader which contains lightning algorithms, antialiasing algorithms, and any other shader computation algorithm, you can separate them in smaller shader files (light.glsl, fxaa.glsl, and so on...) and you have to link these files in your main shader file (the shader file which contains the void main() function) since in OpenGL a vertex array can only have one shader program (composition of vertex shader, fragment shader, geometry shader, etc...) during the rendering pipeline.
The way of writing smaller shader depends also on your rendering algorithm (forward rendering, deffered rendering, or forward+ rendering).
It's important to notice that writing a lot of shader will increase the shader compilation time, and also, writing a big shader with a lot of uniforms will also slow things down...
I'm trying to develop a high level understanding of the graphics pipeline. One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why the Geometry shader exists. Both the Tessellation and Geometry shaders seem to do the same thing to me. Can someone explain to me what does the Geometry shader do different from the tessellation shader that justifies its existence?
The tessellation shader is for variable subdivision. An important part is adjacency information so you can do smoothing correctly and not wind up with gaps. You could do some limited subdivision with a geometry shader, but that's not really what its for.
Geometry shaders operate per-primitive. For example, if you need to do stuff for each triangle (such as this), do it in a geometry shader. I've heard of shadow volume extrusion being done. There's also "conservative rasterization" where you might extend triangle borders so every intersected pixel gets a fragment. Examples are pretty application specific.
Yes, they can also generate more geometry than the input but they do not scale well. They work great if you want to draw particles and turn points into very simple geometry. I've implemented marching cubes a number of times using geometry shaders too. Works great with transform feedback to save the resulting mesh.
Transform feedback has also been used with the geometry shader to do more compute operations. One particularly useful mechanism is that it does stream compaction for you (packs its varying amount of output tightly so there are no gaps in the resulting array).
The other very important thing a geometry shader provides is routing to layered render targets (texture arrays, faces of a cube, multiple viewports), something which must be done per-primitive. For example you can render cube shadow maps for point lights in a single pass by duplicating and projecting geometry 6 times to each of the cube's faces.
Not exactly a complete answer but hopefully gives the gist of the differences.
See Also:
http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/
My current rendering implementation is as follows:
Store all vertex information as quads rather than triangles
For triangles, simply repeat the last vertex (i.e. v0 v1 v2 v2)
Pass vertex information as lines_adjacency to geometry shader
Check if quad or triangle, output as triangle_strip
The reason I went this route was because I was implementing a wireframe shader, and I wanted to draw the quads without a diagonal line through them. But, I've since discarded the feature.
I'm now wondering if I should go back to simply drawing GL_TRIANGLES, and leave the geometry shader out of the equation. But that got me thinking... what's actually more efficient from a performance point of view?
In average, my scenes are composed of quads and triangles in equal amounts.
Drawing with all triangles would mean: 6 vertices per quad, 3 per triangle.
Drawing with lines_adjacency would mean: 4 vertices per quad, 4 per triangle.
(This is with indexed drawing, so the vertex buffer is the same size for both of them)
So the vertex ratio is 9:8 (triangles : lines_adjacency).
Would I be correct in assuming that with indexed drawing, each vertex is only getting processed once by the vertex shader (as opposed to once per index)? In which case drawing triangles is going to be more efficient (since there isn't an extra geometry-shader step to perform), with the only negative being the slight amount of extra memory the indices take up.
Then again, if the vertices do get processed once per index, I could see the edge being with the lines_adjacency method, considering the geometry conversion is very simple, whilst the vertex shader might be running more intensive lighting calculations.
So that pretty much sums up my question: how do vertices get treated with indexed drawing, and what sort of performance impact could be expected if including a simple geometry shader?
Geometry shaders never improve efficiency in this sort of situation, they only complicate the primitive assembly process. When you use geometry shaders, the post-T&L cache no longer works the way it was originally designed.
While it is true that the geometry shader will reuse any shared (indexed) vertices transformed in the vertex shader stage when it needs to fetch vertex data, the geometry shader still computes and emits a unique set of vertices per-output-primitive.
Furthermore, because geometry shaders are allowed to emit a variable number of data points they are unlike other shader stages. It is much more difficult to parallelize geometry shaders than it is vertex or fragment. There are just too many negative things about geometry shaders for me to suggest using them unless you actually need them.
So I want to draw lots of quads (or even cubes), and stumbled across this lovely thing called the geometry shader.
I kinda get how it works now, and I could probably manipulte it into drawing a cube for every vertex in the vertex buffer, but I'm not sure if it's the right way to do it. The geometry shader happens between the vertex shader and the fragment shader, so it works on the vertices in screen space. But I need them in world space to do transformations.
So, is it OK to have my vertex shader simply pipe the inputs to the geometry shader, and have the geometry shader multiply by the modelviewproj matrix after creating the primitives? It should be no problem with the unified shader architecture, but I still feel queasy when making the vertex shader redundant.
Are there alternatives? Or is this really the 'right' way to do it?
It is perfectly OK.
Aside from that, consider using instanced rendering (glDrawArraysInstanced,glDrawElementsInstanced) with vertex attribute divisor (glVertexAttribDivisor). This way you can accomplish the same task without geometry shader at all.
For example, you can have a regular cube geometry bound. Then you have a special vertex attribute carrying cube positions you want for each instance. You should bind it with a divisor=1, what will make it advance for each instance drawn. Then draw the cube using glDraw*Instanced, specifying the number of instances.
You can also sample input data from textures, using gl_VertexID or gl_InstanceID for coordinates.
I'm currently using a VBO for the texture coordinates, normals and the vertices of a (3DS) model I'm drawing with "glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, ...);". For debugging I want to (temporarily) show the normals when drawing my model. Do I have to use immediate mode to draw each line from vert to vert+normal -OR- stuff another VBO with vert and vert+normal to draw all the normals… -OR- is there a way for the vertex shader to use the vertex and normal data already passed in when drawing the model to compute the V+N used when drawing the normals?
No, it is not possible to draw additional lines from a vertex shader.
A vertex shader is not about creating geometry, it is about doing per vertex computation. Using vertex shaders, when you say glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES,0,3), this is what specifies exactly what you will draw, i.e. 1 triangle. Once processing reaches the vertex shader, you can only alter the properties of the vertices of that triangle, not modify in any way, shape or form, the topology and/or count of the geometry.
What you're looking for is what OpenGL 3.2 defines as a geometry shader, that allows to output arbitrary geometry count/topology out of a shader. Note however that this is only supported through OpenGL 3.2, that not many cards/drivers support right now (it's been out for a few months now).
However, I must point out that showing normals (in most engines that support some kind of debugging) is usually done with the traditional line rendering, with an additional vertex buffer that gets filled in with the proper positions (P, P+C*N) for each mesh position, where C is a constant that represents the length you want to use to show the normals. It is not that complex to write...
You could approximate this by drawing the geometry twice. Once draw it as you normally would. The second time, draw the geometry as GL_POINTS, and attach a vertex shader which offsets each vertex position by the vertex normal.
This would result in your model having a set of points floating over the surface. Each point would show the direction of the normal from the vertex it corresponds to.
This isn't perfect, but might be sufficient, depending on what it is you're hoping to use it for.
UPDATE: AHA! And if you pass in a constant scaling factor to the vertex shader, and have your application interpolate that factor between 0 and 1 as time goes by, your points rendered by the vertex shader will animate over time, starting at the vertex they apply to, and then floating off in the direction of its normal.
It's probably possible to get more or less the right effect with a cleverly written vertex shader, but it'd be a lot of work. Since this is for debugging purposes anyway, it seems better to just draw a few lines; the performance hit will not be severe.