I'm creating a tile-based game in C# with OpenGL and I'm trying to optimize my code as best as possible.
I've read several articles and sections in books and all come to the same conclusion (as you may know) that use of VBOs greatly increases performance.
I'm not quite sure, however, how they work exactly.
My game will have tiles on the screen, some will change and some will stay the same. To use a VBO for this, I would need to add the coordinates of each tile to an array, correct?
Also, to texture these tiles, I would have to create a separate VBO for this?
I'm not quite sure what the code would look like for tiling these coordinates if I've got tiles that are animated and tiles that will be static on the screen.
Could anyone give me a quick rundown of this?
I plan on using a texture atlas of all of my tiles. I'm not sure where to begin to use this atlas for the textured tiles.
Would I need to compute the coordinates of the tile in the atlas to be applied? Is there any way I could simply use the coordinates of the atlas to apply a texture?
If anyone could clear up these questions it would be greatly appreciated. I could even possibly reimburse someone for their time & help if wanted.
Thanks,
Greg
OK, so let's split this into parts. You didn't specify which version of OpenGL you want to use - I'll assume GL 3.3.
VBO
Vertex buffer objects, when considered as an alternative to client vertex arrays, mostly save the GPU bandwidth. A tile map is not really a lot of geometry. However, in recent GL versions the vertex buffer objects are the only way of specifying the vertices (which makes a lot of sense), so we cannot really talked about "increasing performance" here. If you mean "compared to deprecated vertex specification methods like immediate mode or client-side arrays", then yes, you'll get a performance boost, but you'd probably only feel it with 10k+ vertices per frame, I suppose.
Texture atlases
The texture atlases are indeed a nice feature to save on texture switching. However, on GL3 (and DX10)-enabled GPUs you can save yourself a LOT of trouble characteristic to this technique, because a more modern and convenient approach is available. Check the GL reference docs for TEXTURE_2D_ARRAY - you'll like it. If GL3 cards are your target, forget texture atlases. If not, have a google which older cards support texture arrays as an extension, I'm not familiar with the details.
Rendering
So how to draw a tile map efficiently? Let's focus on the data. There are lots of tiles and each tile has the following infromation:
grid position (x,y)
material (let's call it "material" not "texture" because as you said the image might be animated and change in time; the "material" would then be interpreted as "one texture or set of textures which change in time" or anything you want).
That should be all the "per-tile" data you'd need to send to the GPU. You want to render each tile as a quad or triangle strip, so you have two alternatives:
send 4 vertices (x,y),(x+w,y),(x+w,y+h),(x,y+h) instead of (x,y) per tile,
use a geometry shader to calculate the 4 points along with texture coords for every 1 point sent.
Pick your favourite. Also note that directly corresponds to what your VBO is going to contain - the latter solution would make it 4x smaller.
For the material, you can pass it as a symbolic integer, and in your fragment shader - basing on current time (passed as an uniform variable) and the material ID for a given tile - you can decide on the texture ID from the texture array to use. In this way you can make a simple texture animation.
Related
I'm currently struggling with finding a good approach to render many (thousands) slightly different models. The model itself is a simple cube with some vertex offset, think of a skewed quad face. Each 'block' has a different offset of its vertices, so basically I have a voxel engine on steroids as each block is not a perfect cube but rather a skewed cuboid. To render this shape 48 vertices are needed but can be cut to 24 vertices as only 3 faces are visible. With indexing we are at 12 vertices (4 for each face).
But, now that I have the vertices for each block in the world, how do I render them?
What I've tried:
Instanced Rendering. Sounds good, doesn't work as my models are not the same.
I could simplify distant blocks to a cube and render them with glDrawArraysInstanced/glDrawElementsInstanced.
Put everything in one giant VBO. This has a better performance than rendering each cube individually, but has the downside of having one large mesh. This is not desireable as I need every cube to have different textures, lighting, etc... Selecting a single cube within that huge mesh is not possible.
I am aware of frustum culling and occlusion culling, but I already have problems with some cubes in front of me (tested with a 128x128 world).
My requirements:
Draw some thousand models.
Each model has vertices offsets to make the block less cubic, stored in another VBO.
Each block has to be an individual object, as you should be able to place/remove blocks.
Any good performance advices?
This is not desireable as I need every cube to have different textures, lighting, etc... Selecting a single cube within that huge mesh is not possible.
Programmers should avoid declaring that something is "impossible"; it limits your thinking.
Giving each face of these cubes different textures has many solutions. The Minecraft approach uses texture atlases. Each "texture" is really just a sub-section of one large texture, and you use texture coordinates to select which sub-section a particular face uses. But you can get more complex.
Array textures allow for a more direct way to solve this problem. Here, the texture coordinates would be the same, but you use a per-vertex integer to select the correct texture for a face. All of the vertices for a particular face would have an index. And if you're clever, you don't even really need texture coordinates. You can generate them in your vertex shader, based on per-vertex values like gl_VertexID and the like.
Lighting parameters would work the same way: use some per-vertex data to select parameters from a UBO or SSBO.
As for the "individual object" bit, that's merely a matter of how you're thinking about the problem. Do not confuse what happens in the player's mind with what happens in your code. Games are an elaborate illusion; just because something appears to the user to be an "individual object" doesn't mean it is one to your rendering engine.
What you need is the ability to modify your world's data to remove and add new blocks. And if you need to show a block as "selected" or something, then you simply need another per-block value (like the lighting parameters and index for the texture) which tells you whether to draw it as a "selected" block or as an "unselected" one. Or you can just redraw that specific selected block. There are many ways of handling it.
Any decent graphics card (since about 2010) is able to render a few millions vertices in a blinking.
The approach is different depending on how many changes per frame. In other words, how many data must be transferred to the GPU per frame.
For the case of small number of changes, storing the data in one big VBO or many smaller VBOs (and their VAOs), sending the changes by uniforms, and calling several glDraw***, shows similar performance. Different hardwares behave with little difference. Indexed data may improve the speed.
When most of the data changes in every frame and these changes are hard or impossible to do in the shaders, then your app is memory-transfer bound. Streaming is a good advise.
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'm doing a 2D turn based RTS game with 32x32 tiles (400-500 tiles per frame). I could use a VBO for this, but I may have to change almost all the VBO data each frame, as the background is a scrolling one and the visible tiles will change every time the map scrolls. Will using VBOs rather than client side vertex arrays still yield a performance benefit here? Also if using VBOs which data format is most efficient (float, or int16, or ...)?
If you are simply scrolling, you can use the vertex shader to manipulate the position rather than update the vertices themselves. Pass in a 'scroll' value as a uniform to your background and simply add that value to the x (or y, or whatever applies to your case) value of each vertex.
Update:
If you intend to modify the VBO often, you can tell the driver this using the usage param of glBufferData. This page has a good description of how that works: http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Vertex_Buffer_Object, under Accessing VBOs. In your case, it looks like you should specify GL_DYNAMIC_DRAW to glBufferData so that the driver puts your VBO in the best place in memory for your application.
The regular approach is to move the camera and perform culling instead of updating the content of the VBOs. For a 2d game culling will use simple rectangle intersection algorithm, which you will need anyway for unit selection in the game. As a bonus, manipulating the camera will allow to rate the camera and zoom in and zoom out. Also you could combine several tiles (4, 9 or 16) into one VBO.
I would strongly advise against writing logic to move the tiles instead of the camera. It will take you longer, have more bugs, and be less flexible.
The format will depend on what data you are storing in the VBOs. When in doubt, just use uint8 for color and float32 for everything else. Though for a 2d game your VBOs or vertex array are going to be very small compared to 3d applications, so it's highly unlikely VBO will make any difference.
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'm trying to write a game that deals with many circles (well, Triangle Fans, but you get the idea). Each circle will have an x position, a y position, and a mass property. Every circle's mass property will be different. Also, I want to color some groups of circles different, while keeping a transparent circle center, and fading to opaque along the perimeter of the circles.
I was told to use VBOs, and have been Googling all day. I would like a full example on how I would draw these circles and an explanation as to how VBOs work, while keeping that explanation simple.
I have not implemented VBOs myself yet, but from what I understand, they work similar to texture objects. In fact, when I am reminding myself and explaining to others what VBOs are, I like to incorrectly call texture objects 'texture buffer objects', to reinforce the conceptual similarity.
(Not to be mixed with buffer textures from NVIDIA-specified extension GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object.)
So let's think: what are texture objects? They are objects you generate using glGenTextures(). glGenBuffersARB() does similar thing. An analogy applies with glBindTexture() and glBindBufferARB().
(As of OpenGL 1.5, functions glGenBuffers() and glBindBuffer() have entered core OpenGL, so you can use them in place of the extension equivalents.)
But what exactly are these 'texture objects', and what do they do? Well, consider that you can, actually, use glTexture2D() in each frame to set up a texture. Texture objects only serve to reduce traffic between GPU and main memory; instead of sending entire pixel array, you send just the "OpenGL name" (that is, an integer identifier) of the texture object which you know to be static.
VBOs serve similar purpose. Instead of sending the vertex array over and over, you upload the array once using glBufferData() and then send just the "OpenGL name" of the object. They are great for static objects, and not so great for dynamic objects. In fact, many generic 3D engines such as Ogre3D provide you with a way to specify if a mesh is dynamic or static, quite probably in order to let you decide between VBOs and vertex arrays.
For your purposes, VBOs are not the right answer. You want numerous simple objects that are continuously morphing and changing. By simple, I mean those with less than 200 vertices. Unless you intend to write a very smart and complex vertex shader, VBOs are not for you. You want to use vertex arrays, which you can easily manipulate from main CPU and update them each frame without making special calls to graphics card to reupload the entire VBO onto the graphics card (which may turn out slower than just sending vertex arrays).
Here's a quite good letscallit "man page" from nVidia about VBO API. Read it for further info!
good vbo tutorial
What you're doing looks like particles, you might want to google "particle rendering" just in case.