I wrote a program in C++/OpenGL (using Dev-C++ compiler) for my calculus 2 class. The teacher liked the program and he requested me to somehow put it online so that instead of downloading the .exe I can just run it on the web browser. Kinda like java applets run on the browser.
The question is:
How if possible, can I display a C++/OpenGL program in a web browser?
I am thinking of moving to JOGL which is a java interpretation of OpenGL but I rather stay in C++ since I am more familiar with it.
Also is there any other better and easier 3D web base API that I can consider?
There is a lot activity recently with WebGL. It is a binding for Javascript to native OpenGL ES 2.0 implementations, designed as an extension of the canvas HTML5 element.
It is supported by the nightly builds of Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera.
Have a look at these tutorials, based on the well known NeHe OpenGL tutorials.
Several projects based on WebGL are emerging, most notably Scenegraphs APIs.
From Indie teams: SceneJS, GLGE, SpiderGL.
From Google: the team behind O3D plugin is trying to implement a pure WebGL backend (source) for the project, so that no plugin will be necessary.
From W3C/Web3D: There is an ongoing discussion to include X3D as part of any HTML5 DOM tree, much like SVG in HTML4. The X3DOM project was born last year to support this idea. Now it is using WebGL as its render backend, and is version 1.0 since March 2010.
I'm almost sure that WebGL is the way to go in the near future. Mozilla/Google/Apple/Opera are promoting it, and if the technology works and there is sufficient customer/developer demand, maybe Microsoft will implement it on IE (let's hope that there will be no "WebDX"!).
AFAIK, there's only 3 options:
Java. it includes the whole OpenGL stack.
Google's Native Client (NaCL), essentially it's a plugin that let's you run executable x86 code. Just compile it and call it from HTML. Highly experimental, and nobody will have it already installed. Not sure if it gives you access to OpenGL libraries.
Canvas:3D. Another very experimental project. This is an accelerated 3D API accessible from JavaScript. AFAICT, it's only on experimental builds of Firefox.
I'd go for Java, if at all.
OTOH, if it's mostly vectorial works (without lots of textures and illumination/shadows), you might make it work on SVG simply by projecting your vectors from 3D to 2D. In that case, you can achieve cross-browser compatibility using SVGWeb, it's a simple JavaScript library that allows you to transparently use either the browser's native SVG support or a Flash-based SVG renderer.
Do you really have the time to rewrite it? I thought students were meant to be too busy for non-essential assignment work.
But if you really want to do it, perhaps a preview of it running as a flash movie is the easiest way. Then it's just a matter of doing that and you could provide a download link to the real application if people are interested.
Outside of Java, in-browser OpenGL is really in its infancy. Google's launched a really cool API and plugin for it though. It's called O3D:
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/
Article about the overall initiative:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142079/2009/08/webgl.html
It's not OpenGL, but the Web3D Consortium's X3D specification may be of interest.
Another solution is to use Emscripten (a source-to-source compiler).
Emscripten supports C/C++ and OpenGL and will translate the source into html/JavaScript.
To use Emscripten you will need to use SDL as a platform abstraction layer (for getting an OpenGL context as well as loading images).
Emscripten is currently being used in Unreal Engine and will also be used in the Unity 5 engine.
Read more about the project here:
https://github.com/kripken/emscripten
Two approaches:
Switch to Java. However, your application will suffer from a loss of performance as a trade off for portability. But since Java is everywhere, this approach ensures that your code can be executed in most browsers.
Use ActiveX, which allows you to run native binary code for Microsoft Windows. This is not recommended in production because activeX is well known as a potential security hole, but since your lecturer is the one viewing it, security doesn't seem to be a big deal. This is applicable for Microsoft platform (Windows+IE) only.
Related
I am a C++ programmer, but for some reason, I have to develop a website by myself(My own commercial project). I don't want to take a lot of time to study JavaScript and something else. It is possible to just use QT and WebAssembly (instead of HTML + CSS + JavaScript) to develop a front-end web?
Yes, it's absolutely possible and I'm currently doing it for a project but you should do it carefully based on the project requirements, running environment and your own backgrounds.
Here are some problems you may encounter:
The output .wasm file may get too large. Generally, it won't be suitable for public domain applications.
In low-end devices, maybe you find it laggy if you don't do enough code level optimizations.
Threads are not officially supported yet (as of Dec. 2019) by major browsers but tech-preview is available. This is not a real big problem as it would be a standard feature soon.
Native virtual keyboard won't work on mobile devices but the work is in progress.
These were my own major problems with Qt for WebAssembly.
Despite this, I find it much more flexible than HTML+CSS. QML is really a nice language for UI development. Creating animated UIs is quite easy and straight-forward.
You can also use many JavaScript libraries in your QML code like Lodash and Moment or any other js library that does not refer or manipulate window DOM.
Yes, it is possible. But you should do not do it if only reason is reject for learning new technologies.
For now (I'am writing this answer when Qt 5.14 is present) Qt for webassembly is deployed as official platform. Unfortunately it is young platform support with a lot of problems and possible future changes. Qt team do really good job so next version will be better. 5.14 is much better than 5.13 in webassembly context but still need fixes.
You should know Qt for webassembly will support only a few Qt modules, excluding widget. Yes, you can only use QML for GUI.
Qt for webassembly was created for the purpose of port one code base in other platform (it it generally Qt develop way, please see Qt for MCU). With other technologies in this stack like QRemoteObject is very interesting technologies. It was not created for websites in normal network. Main Qt for webassembly target are internal network systems and remote control of devices. Pay attention about this.
Unfortunately, not all browser will support webassembly right. Please see Qt for weassembly support notes.
Additional, in Qt you can't find build-in rest-API handle or other standard web technologies to integrate with your existing backed.
I wanted to know some general throughts about Marmalade and AppEasy. http://www.appeasymobile.com/
I've been following DrMop's tutorials on creating a game engine in Marmalade but noticed that since the tutorials he's gone on to make AppEasy(with others). I have looked at it and have a couple of immediate concerns
1) How easily I can incorporate text files/xml files with XOML.
2) What degree of control I would have over the code base.
3) How deep the engine is and whether it has any comparitable rivels which are better.
I've started the project I'm working on with the IWGame engine that DrMop was using in his tutorials but was wondering that if all my fears are unfounded if it is worth carrying on?
Cheers,
Support for IwGame is coming to a close. IwGame is being replaced by the AppEasy Core SDK, which is an open source portable engine where Marmalade is just one of the platforms that it plans to support. AppEasy Core will also be open source so others can contribute to its development, submit bug fixes etc..
XOML + Lua or XOML + C++ or all 3 used together provide a very powerful easy to use environment. You can easily integrate text files, XML files, image files, sound files etc. You should check out the official web site appeasymobile, theres plenty of documentation and a drag and drop app builder that spits out cross platform apps based on XOML + Lua.
Cocos2d-x is a good alternative, but you will need to set up each dev environment for each platform you plan to support (massive pain to do) as it doesn't cross platform compile stuff for you. Although Marmalade do now have a stable interface to Cocos2dx which enables you to use Cocos2dx cross multiple platforms.
I have to develop a basic inventory system, and my client wants to see all the objects in the inventory in 3D and their positions in the warehouse. The thing is that I have to develop this as soon as possible, delivery time is my priority here. So I came to the conclusion that I would need a powerful 3D graphics engine and an UI toolkit that can be easily integrated with it. I've plenty of experience with C++, Qt, OpenGL, VTK, C# and WinForms. In my experience, VTK is not so good with textures and it would involve more work to add the eye candy my client wants (like animations, visual effects, etc). I've tried Axiom with WinForms. I went through hell making a sample load and run (framework incompatibilities, rendering engines not found, codec native dependencies missing, etc).
I have been evaluating different options:
Qt + Ogre (C++)
WinForms + Axiom (.NET)
Qt + Irrlicht (C++)
Which do you think would be the best option? Could you recommend me some other possibility?
Thanks in advance!
I spent a heap of time developing with Mogre (a C# wrapper around Ogre) and WinForms. In my opinion it's a good combination because you can develop the GUI much faster in C# WinForms than any of the C++ options.
If you don't mind using a C# wrapper around the C++ Ogre library I recommend using Mogre rather than Axiom. It is very stable, has some good maintainers and keeps up with the latest version of Ogre pretty well. Any code on the Ogre forums can easily be ported to C# because most of the API is identical.
Axiom is a pure .NET port of Ogre, although it lags a few versions behind and may have some missing features. I haven't spent a lot of time with it but I believe it's main strength is that it's all managed code, if that's important to you.
There's an open source project called Glue Editor that I started a while ago. It's no longer maintained but it has a lot of code you can use to get Mogre working with WinForms. You should be able to download the repository and compile it out of the box. You're welcome to take the code and use it however you like.
https://bitbucket.org/glue/glueeditor/src
If you decide to go down the Qt + Ogre path there's a project called Ogitor you might want to check out.
https://bitbucket.org/jacmoe/ogitor/src
You might also want to check out XNA and MonoGame. XNA is Microsofts framework for making games in C#. It is fairly bare bones but it has a much lower learning curve than Ogre, Mogre or Axiom. MonoGame is an open source implementation of the XNA framework that works on non-Microsoft platforms (e.g. Android, iOS, Linux).
http://monogame.codeplex.com/
I recommend Qt + Ogre (C++), although I have to confess this is the only combination from your list I have much experience with. The good thing about Ogre is the amount of documentation and the active community. So many questions are answered and documented. The graphics itself can probably be created in all library combinations. However, I like the easy intergration of object interaction in Ogre. The standard is based on bounding boxes, however there is code available for triangle intersection as well. Wish you luck!
I've been playing with WebGL quite a bit lately and I really dig Three.js. It's really lightweight and just serves as something that makes wrangling most of the GL calls a bit easier, and provides a quick way of creating basic primatives like a sphere.
Now, in native land, it seems that all the frameworks want to be so much more than that. Things like Oolong, UDK, Unity, Cocos, etc. I did a bit of googling, and the closest thing I could find was iSGL3D but I'm not thoroughly convinced it is the right answer.
Is there something more similar to Three.js that is written in native C, C++ or Objective-C that I can't find?
Here is a port of three to C++: https://github.com/jdduke/three_cpp
Core - 75% complete (TODO: Morph targets, shadows, plugin support)
Extras - 5-10% complete (TODO: Pretty much everything)
Examples - 25% complete (TODO: Examples involving morph targets an)
You're asking for a strict graphics engine only, in the same direction as OpenGL (in comparison to DirectX which again wants to be so much more than that). I'd advise Ogre3D for iPhone as the philosophy behind Ogre3d is to be a strict graphics engine.
The other one that comes to mind is recently perused MoSync mobile sdk which offers excellent OpenGL support across a wide range of platforms (albeit limited; to maintain portability).
If you're more interested in loading shaders and having the graphics engine manage the rest, I'd pick Ogre3D for iPhone.
You can always take the initiative (if you have the time of course) to write your own or start off from the ones mentioned here!
Or you can use a JavaScript engine (JSAPI for example) in a C++ editor and then move three.js on top of that. This is great as you'll only update the JSAPI and Three.js without breaking functionalities and your C++/JSThree engine will stay up to date with minimal maintenance.
Just some ideas of course!
Although I would also prefer to see a port of three.js for iOS, recently stumbled up on iSGL3d (http://isgl3d.com/).
This project serves a simple, encapsuled way to build an manipulate an opengl scene graph by code. Otherwise than some creative coding frameworks like cinder, iSGL3d comes in pure Objective C.
Works well for me yet.
You could also give Ejecta a go. They just added WebGL/three.js support.
https://github.com/phoboslab/Ejecta/tree/next
Three_cpp is good, but has stopped updating since 3 years ago. It does not support VS version below 2012.
Ogre is another good choice, which is much similar to the logic of Threejs:)
And the official site provides a very detailed tutorial, making it easy to use!
After some more searching I found a stripped down version of SIO2 called GFX that looks promising.
If you're looking for strictly ease-of-use, I'd highly recommend Panda3D. It's cross-platform (Windows, Unix, Mac), really easy to use, has extensive documentation, and a nice community around it.
We have a windows mobile 6.5 gaming application which uses openGL . Now we planned to port it to WP7 (windows phone 7).
When I check the compatibility of native code C++ and openGL in WP7, they are telling that there is no support in the WP7. WP7 support only Silverlight, XNA and the .NET Framework.
So what we thought of use XNA.Is it is the right to use this?
Please let me know how to proceed with this. And which is the best way to go about it.
well I am doing exactly the same thing now.
I'm currently going through the painstaking process of just manually converting all the code to c#. there is no little saviour like the Android NDK here with winmo7, you HAVE to use c#
if I had my time I would and WILL definitely look into something that converts from c++ to c#, it is completely unrealistic to try and manage a multi platform project across multiple languages.
depending on your app: silverlight I believe is meant for the more 'Applicationy' type apps, where XNA is meant for games (or 3D apps), but I think both are coded in c#
EDIT: lol, sorry skipped over the part about how you were porting an openGL game, definitely use XNA, converting from openGL to XNA(directX like) will be the least of your worries, its fairly strait forward. its converting the code that's the pain. XNA is meant for n00bs writing stuff from scratch, and for them, it is awesome. to that end, it is good if you still have all your asset's source: hopefully still having your max or maya model files, and tga/bmp/png texture source files. if so, the content pipeline will automatically convert textures, and for models, converts .x or .fbx files exported from max or maya.