I have tried so many different strategies to get a usable noise function and none of them work. So, how do you implement perlin noise on an ATI graphics card in GLSL?
Here are the methods I have tried:
I have tried putting the permutation and gradient data into a GL_RGBA 1D texture and calling the texture1D function. However, one call to this noise implementation leads to 12 texture calls and kills the framerate.
I have tried uploading the permutation and gradient data into a uniform vec4 array, but the compiler won't let me get an element in the array unless the index is a constant. For example:
int i = 10;
vec4 a = noise_data[i];
will give a compiler error of this:
ERROR: 0:43: Not supported when use temporary array indirect index.
Meaning I can only retrieve the data like this:
vec4 a = noise_data[10];
I also tried programming the array directly into the shader, but I got the same index issue. I hear NVIDIA graphics cards will actually allow this method, but ATI will not.
I tried making a function that returned a specific hard coded data point depending on the input index, but the function, being called 12 times and having 64 if statements, made the linking time unbearable.
ATI does not support the "built in" noise functions for glsl, and I cant just precompute the noise and import it as a texture, because I am dealing with fractals. This means I need the infinite precision of calculating the noise at run time.
So the overarching question is...
How?
For better distribution of random values I suggest these very good articles:
Pseudo Random Number Generator in GLSL
Lumina noise GLSL tutorial
Have random fun !!!
There is a project on github with GLSL noise functions. It has both the "classic" and newer noise functions in 2,3, and 4D.
IOS does have the noise function implemented.
noise() is well-known for not beeing implemented...
roll you own :
int c;
int Xn;
srand(int x, int y, int width){// in pixel
c = x+y*width;
};
int rand(){
Xn = (a*Xn+c)%m;
return Xn;
}
for a and m values, see wikipedia
It's not perfect, but often good enough.
This SimpleX noise stuff might do what you want.
Try adding #version 150 to the top of your shader.
Related
I got problem when using gl_SampleMask with multisample texture.
To simplify problem I give this example.
Drawing two triangles to framebuffer with a 32x multisample texture attached.
Vertexes of triangles are (0,0) (100,0) (100,1) and (0,0) (0,1) (100,1).
In fragment shader, I have code like this,
#extension GL_NV_sample_mask_override_coverage : require
layout(override_coverage) out int gl_SampleMask[];
...
out_color = vec4(1,0,0,1);
coverage_mask = gen_mask( gl_FragCoord.x / 100.0 * 8.0 );
gl_SampleMask[0] = coverage_mask;
function int gen_mask(int X) generates a integer with X 1s in it's binary representation.
Hopefully, I'd see 100 pixel filled with full red color.
But actually I got alpha-blended output. Pixel at (50,0) shows (1,0.25,0.25), which seems to be two (1,0,0,0.5) drawing on (1,1,1,1) background.
However, if I break the coverage_mask, check gl_SampleID in fragment shader, and write (1,0,0,1) or (0,0,0,0) to output color according to coverage_mask's gl_SampleID's bit,
if ((coverage_mask >> gl_SampleID) & (1 == 1) ) {
out_color = vec4(1,0,0,1);
} else {
out_color = vec4(0,0,0,0);
}
I got 100 red pixel as expected.
I've checked OpenGL wiki and document but didn't found why the behavior changed here.
And, i'm using Nvidia GTX 980 with driver version 361.43 on Windows 10.
I'd put the test code to GitHub later if necessary.
when texture has 32 samples, Nvidia's implementation split one pixel to four small fragment, each have 8 samples. So in each fragment shader there are only 8-bit gl_SampleMask available.
OK, let's assume that's true. How do you suppose NVIDIA implements this?
Well, the OpenGL specification does not allow them to implement this by changing the effective size of gl_SampleMask. It makes it very clear that the size of the sample mask must be large enough to hold the maximum number of samples supported by the implementation. So if GL_MAX_SAMPLES returns 32, then gl_SampleMask must have 32 bits of storage.
So how would they implement it? Well, there's one simple way: the coverage mask. They give each of the 4 fragments a separate 8 bits of coverage mask that they write their outputs to. Which would work perfectly fine...
Until you overrode the coverage mask with override_coverage. This now means all 4 fragment shader invocations can write to the same samples as other FS invocations.
Oops.
I haven't directly tested NVIDIA's implementation to be certain of that, but it is very much consistent with the results you get. Each FS instance in your code will write to, at most, 8 samples. The same 8 samples. 8/32 is 0.25, which is exactly what you get: 0.25 of the color you wrote. Even though 4 FS's may be writing for the same pixel, each one is writing to the same 25% of the coverage mask.
There's no "alpha-blended output"; it's just doing what you asked.
As to why your second code works... well, you fell victim to one of the classic C/C++ (and therefore GLSL) blunders: operator precedence. Allow me to parenthesize your condition to show you what the compiler thinks you wrote:
((coverage_mask >> gl_SampleID) & (1 == 1))
Equality testing has a higher precedence than any bitwise operation. So it gets grouped like this. Now, a conformant GLSL implementation should have failed to compile because of that, since the result of 1 == 1 is a boolean, which cannot be used in a bitwise & operation.
Of course, NVIDIA has always had a tendency to play fast-and-loose with GLSL, so it doesn't surprise me that they allow this nonsense code to compile. Much like C++. I have no idea what this code would actually do; it depends on how a true boolean value gets transformed into an integer. And GLSL doesn't define such an implicit conversion, so it's up to NVIDIA to decide what that means.
The traditional condition for testing a bit is this:
(coverage_mask & (0x1 << gl_SampleID))
It also avoids undefined behavior if coverage_mask isn't an unsigned integer.
Of course, doing the condition correctly should give you... the exact same answer as the first one.
I want to draw a ring (circle with big border) with the shaperenderer.
I tried two different solutions:
Solution: draw n-circles, each with 1 pixel width and 1 pixel bigger than the one before. Problem with that: it produces a graphic glitch. (also with different Multisample Anti-Aliasing values)
Solution: draw one big filled circle and then draw a smaller one with the backgroundcolor. Problem: I can't realize overlapping ring shapes. Everything else works fine.
I can't use a ring texture, because I have to increase/decrease the ring radius dynamic. The border-width should always have the same value.
How can I draw smooth rings with the shaperenderer?
EDIT:
Increasing the line-width doesn't help:
MeshBuilder has the option to create a ring using the ellipse method. It allows you to specify the inner and outer size of the ring. Normally this would result in a Mesh, which you would need to render yourself. But because of a recent change it is also possible to use in conjunction with PolygonSpriteBatch (an implementation of Batch that allows more flexible shapes, while SpriteBatch only allows quads). You can use PolygonSpriteBatch instead of where you normally would use a SpriteBatch (e.g. for your Stage or Sprite class).
Here is an example how to use it: https://gist.github.com/xoppa/2978633678fa1c19cc47, but keep in mind that you do need the latest nightly (or at least release 1.6.4) for this.
Maybe you can try making a ring some other way, such as using triangles. I'm not familiar with LibGDX, so here's some
pseudocode.
// number of sectors in the ring, you may need
// to adapt this value based on the desired size of
// the ring
int sectors=32;
float outer=0.8; // distance to outer edge
float inner=1.2; // distance to inner edge
glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES)
glNormal3f(0,0,1)
for(int i=0;i<sectors;i++){
// define each section of the ring
float angle=(i/sectors)*Math.PI*2
float nextangle=((i+1)/sectors)*Math.PI*2
float s=Math.sin(angle)
float c=Math.cos(angle)
float sn=Math.sin(nextangle)
float cn=Math.cos(nextangle)
glVertex3f(inner*c,inner*s,0)
glVertex3f(outer*cn,outer*sn,0)
glVertex3f(outer*c,outer*s,0)
glVertex3f(inner*c,inner*s,0)
glVertex3f(inner*cn,inner*sn,0)
glVertex3f(outer*cn,outer*sn,0)
}
glEnd()
Alternatively, divide the ring into four polygons, each of which consists of one quarter of the whole ring. Then use ShapeRenderer to fill each of these polygons.
Here's an illustration of how you would divide the ring:
if I understand your question,
maybe, using glLineWidth(); help you.
example pseudo code:
size = 5;
Gdx.gl.glLineWidth(size);
mShapeRenderer.begin(....);
..//
mShapeRenderer.end();
I have completely re-written this first post to better show what the problem is.
I am using ps v1.4 (highest version I have support for) and keep getting an error.
It happens any time I use any type of function such as cos, dot, distance, sqrt, normalize etc. on something that was passed into the pixelshader.
For example, I need to do "normalize(LightPosition - PixelPosition)" to use a point light in my pixelshader, but normalize gives me an error.
Some things to note-
I can use things like pow, abs, and radians with no error.
There is only an error if it is done on something passed from the vertex shader. (For example I could take the sqrt of a local pixelshader variable with no error)
I get the error from doing a function on ANY variable passed in, even text coords, color, etc.
Inside the vertex shader I can do all of these functions on any variables passed in with no errors, it's only in the pixelshader that I get an error
All the values passing from the vertex to pixel shader are correct, because if I use software processing rather than hardware I get no error and a perfectly lit scene.
Since normalizing the vector is essentially where my error comes form I tried creating my own normalizing function.
I call Norm(LightPosition - PixelPosition) and "Norm" looks like this -
float3 Norm(float3 v)
{
return v / sqrt(dot(v, v));
}
I still get the error because I guess technically I'm still trying to take a sqrt inside the pixelshader.
The error isn't anything specific, it just says "error in application" on the line where I load my .fx file in C#
I'm thinking it could actually be a compiling error because I have to use such old versions (vs 1.1 and ps 1.4)
When debugged using fxc.exe it tells me "can not map instruction to pixel shader instruction set"
Old GPU:s didn't always support any instruction, especially in the pixel shader.
You might get away with a sqrt in the vertex shader but for a so old version (1.1 !!) the fragment shader might be extremely limited.
I.e this might not be a bug.
The work around could be to skip the hlsl and write your own assembler (but you might stumble onto the same problem there) and simulate the sqrt (say with a texture lookup and / or interpolations if you can have 2 textures in 1.0 :-p )
You can of course try to write a sqrt-lookup/interpolation in hlsl but it might be too big too (I don't remember but IIRC 1.1 don't let you write very long shaders).
So what I need is simple: each time we perform our shader (meaning on each pixel) I need to calculate random matrix of 1s and 0s with resolution == originalImageResolution. How to do such thing?
As for now I have created one for shadertoy random matrix resolution is set to 15 by 15 here because gpu makes chrome fall often when I try stuff like 200 by 200 while really I need full image resolution size
#ifdef GL_ES
precision highp float;
#endif
uniform vec2 resolution;
uniform float time;
uniform sampler2D tex0;
float rand(vec2 co){
return fract(sin(dot(co.xy ,vec2(12.9898,78.233))) * (43758.5453+ time));
}
vec3 getOne(){
vec2 p = gl_FragCoord.xy / resolution.xy;
vec3 one;
for(int i=0;i<15;i++){
for(int j=0;j<15;j++){
if(rand(p)<=0.5)
one = (one.xyz + texture2D(tex0,vec2(j,i)).xyz)/2.0;
}
}
return one;
}
void main(void)
{
gl_FragColor = vec4(getOne(),1.0);
}
And one for Adobe pixel bender:
<languageVersion: 1.0;>
kernel random
< namespace : "Random";
vendor : "Kabumbus";
version : 3;
description : "not as random as needed, not as fast as needed"; >
{
input image4 src;
output float4 outputColor;
float rand(float2 co, float2 co2){
return fract(sin(dot(co.xy ,float2(12.9898,78.233))) * (43758.5453 + (co2.x + co2.y )));
}
float4 getOne(){
float4 one;
float2 r = outCoord();
for(int i=0;i<200;i++){
for(int j=0;j<200;j++){
if(rand(r, float2(i,j))>=1.0)
one = (one + sampleLinear(src,float2(j,i)))/2.0;
}
}
return one;
}
void
evaluatePixel()
{
float4 oc = getOne();
outputColor = oc;
}
}
So my real problem is - my shaders make my GPU deiver fall. How to use GLSL for same purpose that I do now but with out failing and if possible faster?
Update:
What I want to create is called Single-Pixel Camera (google Compressive Imaging or Compressive Sensing), I want to create gpu based software implementation.
Idea is simple:
we have an image - NxM.
for each pixel in image we want GPU to performe the next operations:
to generate NxMmatrix of random values - 0s and 1s.
compute arithmetic mean of all pixels on original image whose coordinates correspond to coordinates of 1s in our random NxM matrix
output result of arithmetic mean as pixel color.
What I tried to implement in my shaders was simulate that wary process.
What is really stupid in trying to do this on gpu:
Compressive Sensing does not tall us to compute NxM matrix of such arithmetic mean values, it meeds just a peace of it (for example 1/3). So I put some pressure I do not need to on GPU. However testing on more data is not always a bad idea.
Thanks for adding more detail to clarify your question. My comments are getting too long so I'm going to an answer. Moving comments into here to keep them together:
Sorry to be slow, but I am trying to understand the problem and the goal. In your GLSL sample, I don't see a matrix being generated. I see a single vec3 being generated by summing a random selection (varying over time) of cells from a 15 x 15 texture (matrix). And that vec3 is recomputed for each pixel. Then the vec3 is used as the pixel color.
So I'm not clear whether you really want to create a matrix, or just want to compute a value for every pixel. The latter is in some sense a 'matrix', but computing a simple random value for 200 x 200 pixels would not strain your graphics driver. Also you said you wanted to use the matrix. So I don't think that's what you mean.
I'm trying to understand why you want a matrix - to preserve a consistent random basis for all the pixels? If so, you can either precompute a random texture, or use a consistent pseudorandom function like you have in rand() except not use time. You clearly know about that so I guess I still don't understand the goal. Why are you summing a random selection of cells from the texture, for each pixel?
I believe the reason your shader is crashing is that your main() function is exceeding its time limit - either for a single pixel, or for the whole set of pixels. Calling rand() 40,000 times per pixel (in a 200 * 200 nested loop) could certainly explain that!
If you had 200 x 200 pixels, and are calling sin() 40k times for each one, that's 160,000,000 calls per frame. Poor GPU!
I'm hopeful that if we understand the goal better, we'll be able to recommend a more efficient way to get the effect you want.
Update.
(Deleted this part, since it was mistaken. Even though many cells in the source matrix may each contribute less than a visually detectable amount of color to the result, the total of the many cells can contribute a visually detectable amount of color.)
New update based on updated question.
OK, (thinking "out loud" here so you can check whether I'm understanding correctly...) Since you need each of the random NxM values only once, there is no actual requirement to store them in a matrix; the values can simply be computed on demand and then thrown away. That's why your example code above does not actually generate a matrix.
This means we cannot get away from generating (NxM)^2 random values per frame, that is, NxM random values per pixel, and there are NxM pixels. So for N=M=200, that's 160 million random values per frame.
However, we can still optimize some things.
First, since your random values only need to be one bit each (you only need a boolean answer to decide whether to include each cell from the source texture into the mix), you can probably use a cheaper pseudo random number generator. The one you're using outputs much more random data per call than one bit. For example, you could call the same PRNG function as you're using now, but store the value and extract 32 random bits out of it. Or at least several, depending on how many are random enough. In addition, instead of using a sin() function, if you have extension GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 (for bitwise operators), you could use something like this:
.
int LFSR_Rand_Gen(in int n)
{
// <<, ^ and & require GL_EXT_gpu_shader4.
n = (n << 13) ^ n;
return (n * (n*n*15731+789221) + 1376312589) & 0x7fffffff;
}
Second, you are currently performing one divide operation per included cell (/2.0), which is probably relatively expensive, unless the compiler and GPU are able to optimize it into a bit shift (is that possible for floating point?). This also will not give the arithmetic mean of the input values, as discussed above... it will put much more weight on the later values and very little on the earlier ones. As a solution, keep a count of how many values are being included, and divide by that count once, after the loop is finished.
Whether these optimizations will be enough to enable your GPU driver to drive 200x200 * 200x200 pixels per frame, I don't know. They should definitely enable you to increase your resolution substantially.
Those are the ideas that occur to me off the top of my head. I am far from being a GPU expert though. It would be great if someone more qualified can chime in with suggestions.
P.S. In your comment, you jokingly (?) mentioned the option of precomputing N*M NxM random matrices. Maybe that's not a bad idea?? 40,000x40,000 is a big texture (40MB at least), but if you store 32 bits of random data per cell, that comes down to 1250 x 40,000 cells. Too bad vanilla GLSL doesn't help you with bitwise operators to extract the data, but even if you don't have the GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 extension you can still fake it. (Maybe you would also need a special extension then for non-square textures?)
I was studying Perlin's Noise through some examples # http://dindinx.net/OpenGL/index.php?menu=exemples&submenu=shaders and couldn't help to notice that his make3DNoiseTexture() in perlin.c uses noise3(ni) instead of PerlinNoise3D(...)
Now why is that? Isn't Perlin's Noise supposed to be a summation of different noise frequencies and amplitudes?
Qestion 2 is what does ni, inci, incj, inck stand for? Why use ni instead of x,y coordinates? Why is ni incremented with
ni[0]+=inci;
inci = 1.0 / (Noise3DTexSize / frequency);
I see Hugo Elias created his Perlin2D with x,y coordinates, and so does PerlinNoise3D(...).
Thanks in advance :)
I now understand why and am going to answer my own question in hopes that it helps other people.
Perlin's Noise is actually a synthesis of gradient noises. In its production process, we must compute the dot product of a vector pointing from one of the corners flooring the input point to the input point itself with the random-generated gradient vector.
Now if the input point were a whole number, such as the xyz coordinates of a texture you want to create, the dot product would always return 0, which would give you a flat noise. So instead, we use inci, incj, inck as an alternative index. Yep, just an index, nothing else.
Now returning to question 1, there are two methods to implement Perlin's Noise:
1.Calculate the noise values separately and store them in the RGBA slots in the texture
2.Synthesize the noises up before-hand and store them in one of the RGBA slots in the texture
noise3(ni) is the actual implementation of method 1, while PerlinNoise3D(...) suggests the latter.
In my personal opinion, method 1 is much better because you have much more flexibility over how you use each octave in your shaders.
My guess on the reason for using noise3(ni) in make3DNoiseTexture() instead if PerlinNoise3D(...) is that when you use that noise texture in your shader you want to be able to replicate and modify the functionality of PerlinNoise3D(...) directly in the shader.
My guess for the reasoning behind ni, inci, incj, inck is that using x,y,z of the volume directly don't give a good result so by scaling the the noise with the frequency instead it is possible to adjust the resolution of the noise independently from the volume size.