• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

OpenGL Is wrapping DirectX and OpenGL a good thing?

This topic is 4579 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hi, I just started coding a 3d engine for learning pourpose and I'd like to support both DirectX and OpenGL. Browsing this forum and looking at the source code of some popular open source engines (Ogre, Irrlicht, Nebula...), seems like everyone is wrapping DX and OGL. Abstracting platform dependent stuff is generally a good programming practice and that's what I'm doing for all the OS dependent portions of my code. However I'm not sure doing this for the rendering api will be worthwhile. These are my objections: 1) Abstracting the rendering api requires a lot of code. If you want to support multiple version of DX things get even worse, since every version of DX has a new set of COM interfaces and so you can't for example share a codebase across a DX8 and a DX9 backend even for portions that would be otherwise identical. Just to provide some concrete example, XEngine (http://xengine.sourceforge.net) is an open source library entirely dedicated to the task of abstracting the 3d api (with support for DX 8.1, DX 9 and OGL 1.3) and it's no less tha 130.000 lines of code. Ogre is another rendering engine providing api abstraction, and even if it's more difficult to compute exactly how many lines are dedicated to the wrapping (since Ogre is also offering other services, such as animation, scene management and resource management), it has the same order of magnitude. 2) Wrapping isn't flexible enough. With DX and OGL we are lucky since they are abstracting the same underlying hardware and so they are based on the same working priciples. But what happens if I want to keep a door open for future evolutions? For example, if some day real-time ray tracing hardware will be available at consumer level, probably it will work with a completely different paradigm and I won't be able to support it just by writing a new backend for my wrapper. Even without looking too far in the future, what about today and next-gen consoles? Not that I have a chance to code for those platforms, but from a theoretical point of view I'm still interested in a design that enables me to support them. For example, as far as I can understand the PS2 is a completely different beast and it's not likely to easily fit in a new backend for a wrapper originally created for DX and OGL. Next-gen cosoles will use DX and OpenGL ES, but it's still likely that they'll have enough extensions and new features to create big headhaches (for example I read that X360 will have the ability to share system memory with shaders, opening new possibilities). 3) Shaders are breaking the whole concept. When you create a wrapper, the idea is that you'll end up with a complete abstraction and your rendering code will always have to deal with the abstract interface, ignoring the concrete implementation. However with shaders this is not possible: DX uses HLSL, OGL uses GLSL, so even if the wrapper is abstracting all the api necessary to set up a shader, you still need to know what backend you're using to feed the render with the correct shader code (and obviously this also means that you have to write a version of your shader for every shading language supported). As far as I know the only solution to this problem is CG, which is creating an abstraction for the shading language. Unfortunately I read that it's biased toward nVidia hardware and doesn't produce optimal code for Ati GPUs. --- At this point I think I have just two solutions: - Solution 1: Go with the wrapper. That's life: I'll have to code hundred of thousands of lines of code, debug it, profilie it, just to find out that it'll never give me enough flexibility, but maybe in the end that's the best that can be done. - Solution 2: Abstract at an higher level. Instead of abstracting the rendering api, abstract the rendering process. The code would look like this: class render_interface { virtual ~render_interface(); void render( camera* p_camera, scene* p_scene ) = 0; }; class render_dx9 : public render_interface { // DX9 render // ... void render( camera* p_camera, scene* p_scene ); }; class render_gl : public render_interface { // OpenGL render // ... void render( camera* p_camera, scene* p_scene ); }; class render_raytracing : public render_interface { // Ray tracing render // ... void render( camera* p_camera, scene* p_scene ); }; I would use an abstract factory to instantiate the correct render according to user preferences, so the client code will know just render_interface, not the concrete classes. Every concrete render will perform the task of traversing the scene and render it (this is basically a visitor pattern). --- So what should I do? Solution 1 (the api wrapper) is so popular that it looks the most promising: even if I hate it, so many people using it can't be wrong. On the other side, solution 2 seems the be what popular commercial engines such as Quake and Unreal Engine have been succesfully doing for almost a decade. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Well, my vote goes for solution 2.

If you abstract at a higher level, then you will be more able to take advantage of each API's organisation and performance characteristics, and you won't end up with ugly kludges where each API arranges things in a completely different way from the other and one of them has to take a performance hit so that you can present a common interface.

And anyway, just because you're abstracting at a higher level doesn't mean you can't share code in some circumstances between the two (or more) concrete renderers, so I don't think you're losing much. You want a high level interface to your overall rendering engine anyway, so it's just a matter of changing at what level you give yourself a way to write API specific code.

John B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by will75
Browsing this forum and looking at the source code of some popular open source engines (Ogre, Irrlicht, Nebula...), seems like everyone is wrapping DX and OGL.

Are they really ? And then they're still wondering why they can't compete with commercial engines...

Of course option 1 is out of question, your analysis is completely correct. Go with option 2 instead.

Your abstract class hierarchy is a way it can be done. But if you want to ultimately put your individual renderers into separate DLL files (which is the way it is mostly done in commercial engines), then you need a slightly different approach, since it is almost impossible to load DLLs containing polymorph object classes on demand. Well, loading is possible, but you'll have to manually setup the vtables, which is a huge mess.

Instead, define a shared interface class:

class CRenderInterface {
public:
char * Name();
void Init();
void Render();
void SetCameraMatrix(matrix4<float> &Camera);
... etc ...
};





Each renderer will implement all methods of this class.

Now, define a factory function with extern C linkage, that will return an instance of the interface class above:

extern "C" {

CRenderInterface *AquireInterface(void)
{
return( new CRenderInterface );
}

void ReleaseInterface(CRenderInterface *I)
{
delete I;
}

};





Compile all of that above in either a static or dynamic library, one for each renderer type: render_gl.dll, render_dx9.dll, render_sw.dll, etc.

In your host app, you load all available renderers at startup, aquire their interfaces, and add them to a list.

while( still dll files in the renderer directory ) {

// Load the DLL into current address space
lib = LoadLibrary(...);

// Get the factory functions
Aquire = GetProcAddress(lib, "AquireInterface");

// Aquire an interface to the renderer
CRenderInterface *I = Aquire();

// Display name
printf("Renderer added: %s\n", I->Name());

// Add to the list of available renderers
RendererList.push_back(I);

}





Finally, let the user select the one he wants, and simply use the interface to it (init, render, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that your estimation is not correct - hundreds of thousands of lines for abstraction?

WildMagic 3.0, for example, is an absolutely reasonable++ 3D engine. The DX renderer and the OGL renderer together are just under 5000 lines of code.

The Torque game engine abstracts OpenGL using ~7100 lines of code. While it's true that Torque is not abstracting all APIs, it still abstracts OpenGL. The reason is obvious. First of all, there are basic operations you want to do in your code, and in OGL or DX they will take 50 lines of code. If you want to do it right, basic procedural design calls for such an abstraction level. If you do it correctly, you can support multiple APIs. The idea is to disconnect from the API and go into a higher level of operation.

Allegiance, a game by Microsoft that was released to public, abstracts DX using 7700 lines of code. Same logic as in the Torque engine.

My own abstraction of GL/DX currently spans about 4000 lines and it will grow to be about two times this size.

And lastly, xengine. This is not a mere wrapper for DX/OGL. This is just but a small part of the engine. Heightmaps are not a part of an API abstraction. The true numbers are much lower.

Like everything in life, everything has a cost. You can go without abstraction at all. You can pick up your one platform, one API, and deal only with it. This will guarantee that you would waste less time on your code, and also you will have much less problems when running through issues that rise when OGL and DX differ. However, this will also guarantee that the time it will take to port your application will be unreasonably long.

When dealing with abstraction (whether it is OS abstraction, Gfx API abstraction or any other kind), one needs to take good care of the decisions one makes. You need to decide what is the correct level to operate in.

It looks to me as if you didn't understand solution #1 to the fullest. I don't know how much you dug into existing engines; however, most engines use solution #2 in your message (abstracting the render process and not the rendering API), however they do it in a lower level than what you actually portrayed in your code sample. What you did is too high and in that case you WILL have too much code in your renderers.

As I see it, your renderers should break some common ground between the different APIs, and another higher level (scene manager, for example) would take care of enjoying this unified API.

Last note - don't worry too much about the future. You may want to do some reading about XP (eXtreme Programming). I wouldn't recommend jumping deeply into XP, but taking some ideas from it can be nice. Specifically, try to minimize your design to things you know about today, and not to things you think might happen in the future. Use refactoring to change your design. If you care too much about the future, you will have nothing much in the present.

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the higher level abstraction. I can't emphasize this enough. Right now, I am working on my own 2D graphics library, and I want it to work on everything. Not Just OpenGL or DirectX, but the PVR API for the Sega Dreamcast, whatever hardware acceleration is available is on the GBA, OpenGL ES, and so on.

You probably won't have to suffer these issues, because you are only working on an engine designed to be 3D, but if you can properly abstract your engine, you can port it to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by DadleFish
It looks to me as if you didn't understand solution #1 to the fullest. I don't know how much you dug into existing engines; however, most engines use solution #2 in your message (abstracting the render process and not the rendering API), however they do it in a lower level than what you actually portrayed in your code sample. What you did is too high and in that case you WILL have too much code in your renderers.


You're correct: I don't understand solution 1 to the fullest (and probably also solution 2) and that's why I'm asking opinions :-)
I might be wrong with code size... Maybe it's possible to create a working wrapper with a few thousands lines of code, but I doubt it's going to be a full featured one.
XEngine, even after stripping samples and math library, is still a good 90.000 lines of code and it's the most complete wrapper implementation I found so far.
Maybe the author just went with a too pedantic and verbose approach (I still haven't studied the code in depth) and beside that in real production code it's not necessary to abstract every aspect of the api, just the necessary ones.
It's also perfectly possible that with solution 2 one ends up with more lines of code. This is one of the answers I'm looking for.
I'm sure of one thing: solution 2 (in the way I described it) easily leads to the visitor pattern (with the various render implementations visiting the scenegraph) and the visitor pattern is known to generate a maintenance hell in many cases (for example as soon as you add a new node type to your scenegraph, you have to updated every render so that it can handle the new node).


Quote:
Original post by DadleFish
As I see it, your renderers should break some common ground between the different APIs, and another higher level (scene manager, for example) would take care of enjoying this unified API.


But that's exactly what I want to avoid: in the design I have in mind higher level portions of the engine don't even know the existance of the low level ones. In particular the scenegraph doesn't know about the render, because it's perfectly possible that it never gets rendered on that machine (for example if it's running on a network server along with physics and ai engines just to provide npc behaviour).
It's like in the Document/View pattern: the document doesn't know about the views and it's not feeding them with data. What happens instead is that the views are exploring the document, gathering relevant informations a rendering a representation of it. This is true for the render, but also for the physics and ai engine (which are also modifying the document to give behaviour to objects).

Anyway, as John B pointed out, one approach doesn't exclude the other: I can mantain my high level of abstraction and still have common code or wrappers inside the render if this helps making the code smaller and more mantainable.

One thing that still concerns me are shaders: I think that they shouldn't cross the boundaries of the render code... In other words high level code (scene graph) shouldn't be concerned with them as much as it is not concerned with vertex buffers, gpu states and so on. This is not just for the shake of design elegance: if I expose shaders to high level code, I'll end up with content creators (artists) dealing with low level shaders parameters and possibliy multiple versions of each shader (HLSL, GLSL).
The only solution I can think of is creating an abstraction of gpu shaders, a material system that procedurally generates low level gpu shader code, completely hiding the process to the user and exposing instead an high level modular interface (and possibly also a graphical editor).
I see more and more modern engines doing this (Unreal Engine 3 and Offeset Engine for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much for 130,000 lines of code for OGRE:
The GL abstraction has just under 7,200 lines of code, the DirectX 9 abstraction has around 8,700 lines of code, and there are about another 2,500 lines of code in the shared abstraction stuff.
That works out to less than 10,000 lines of code per abstraction, which seems quite reasonable. Also keep in mind that OGRE has a very complete and high level abstraction, and that included in those figures are the code to support all the various shader languages.

From past experience, IrrLicht wraps both APIs in only a few thousand lines of code, but then again it only wraps a small set of each APIs features.

I would tend to agree that you should aim for the highest level of abstraction possible, but keep in mind that the higher-level the abstraction, the more code you are likely to have to write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I've been game programming for 20 years. I do it professionally and have done it as a hobby.

Almost all people who "just started coding a 3d engine" will eventually lose interest and give up. Maybe this is a good learning experience -- just not the experience that was expected.

I strongly recommend writing a simple yet original game instead. The world needs more of those. Hack it together any way you can. If you finish, you're better off than most. And you can refactor working game code into a more general engine. That's far easier (and more realistic) than writing an engine from scratch.

However, if you insist on writing a 3d engine, I'd start by picking one API (windows only == Direct3D9, cross-platfrom == OpenGL). Isolate the API calls as much as possible. You can refactor later if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
I've been game programming for 20 years. I do it professionally and have done it as a hobby.

Almost all people who "just started coding a 3d engine" will eventually lose interest and give up. Maybe this is a good learning experience -- just not the experience that was expected.

I strongly recommend writing a simple yet original game instead. The world needs more of those. Hack it together any way you can. If you finish, you're better off than most. And you can refactor working game code into a more general engine. That's far easier (and more realistic) than writing an engine from scratch.

However, if you insist on writing a 3d engine, I'd start by picking one API (windows only == Direct3D9, cross-platfrom == OpenGL). Isolate the API calls as much as possible. You can refactor later if you want.


I never said I'm a newbie. Sure I haven't 20 years of professional experience, but I've been programming for 15 years in Pascal, Delphi, Assembly, C, C++ (not counting the first experiments in basic when I was a child). I've already written a couple of non trivial 2d games some years ago as a professional (not for the mainstream retail market, it was just a small indie group producing pc based coin-op games). I also wrote just for fun and learning pourpose map viewers for Doom (software rendering), Quake 1 & 2 (software rendering + OpenGL).

The problem is just that I've been away from game and 3d coding for a lot of time. In the last years I've been working full time as a professional programmer in the music software field (audio plugins for vst, dx, au, rtas platforms, both mac and pc) and I basically missed all the shader revolution. I think it's time for me to get up to date with the latest technologies and creating an engine seems the right way, since I'm more interested in the design rather than in implementing demo style tricky effects or small games.
If I were to make a game, sure I would go with a third party engine, since I believe in the benefits of middleware and I'm not an advocate of the "do everything on your own" philosophy. But I also think that for learning pourpose a project such as a good engine with a strong design is the best choice and it would be a better showcase than a small hacked game (just in case I decide to candidate myself for a game programming position).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by will75
I might be wrong with code size... Maybe it's possible to create a working wrapper with a few thousands lines of code, but I doubt it's going to be a full featured one.


Well, the examples I gave you as well as the cutdown of Ogre shown in the thread are full featured ones. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't fear it, as we're not talking about something nearly in the magnitude of 100K of lines.

Quote:
Original post by will75
I'm sure of one thing: solution 2 (in the way I described it) easily leads to the visitor pattern (with the various render implementations visiting the scenegraph) and the visitor pattern is known to generate a maintenance hell in many cases (for example as soon as you add a new node type to your scenegraph, you have to updated every render so that it can handle the new node).


I can't understand why would you use a visitor pattern. As I see it, you'd have (for example) -


class CMyRenderer
{
};

class CMyOpenGLRenderer : public CMyRenderer
{
};

class CMyDX9Renderer : : public CMyRenderer
{
};

class CMyEngine
{
private:
CMyRenderer *m_pRenderer;
};



And then you'd simply instantiate either one. This goes for all of your base classes that deal with the API - textures, vb/ib, and so on.

Quote:
Original post by will75
But that's exactly what I want to avoid: in the design I have in mind higher level portions of the engine don't even know the existance of the low level ones. In particular the scenegraph doesn't know about the render, because it's perfectly possible that it never gets rendered on that machine (for example if it's running on a network server along with physics and ai engines just to provide npc behaviour).


Perhaps I wasn't too clear, sorry. The whole idea of abstraction is that the upper layer doesn't know which API is used by the renderer object(s). It only knows the renderer object(s) interfaces, and works with them. My intention was to hide the API from the scenegraph, for example; you would call "m_pRenderer->ClearScreen()" and you wouldn't know or care how it's done.

However, I do not think that the scenegraph should be ignorant to the actual existence of the renderer (like in the DOCVIEW pattern you've mentioned). I can't really understand why would you do it. After all, it is probable that you would have a single renderer object in your system, just like you have std::cout, and it's unreasonable IMHO that stdout would search for relevant information. Besides, its the scenegraph job to actually feed the renderer with meshes, textures and so on in order for the renderer to send them as polygons to the video adapter.

As for physics and AI - these are indeed higher than the scenegraph and they manipulate it. The renderer isn't such a case. Even if you think in docview terms, you wouldn't say the physics/AI are views manipulating the doc. They are more of the logic.

Quote:
Original post by will75
Anyway, as John B pointed out, one approach doesn't exclude the other: I can mantain my high level of abstraction and still have common code or wrappers inside the render if this helps making the code smaller and more mantainable.


The idea behind abstraction isn't minimizing the code. The idea is to get the core systems of your application (game) ignorant to their actual environment. Something like "hey, read that house from a file and display it, I don't care how you do it"; so you'd abstract your OS and your rendering API. The idea is to separate the logic from the actual tidbits of DOING stuff, so you can later replace the API with anything else.

Original post by will75
One thing that still concerns me are shaders: I think that they shouldn't cross the boundaries of the render code... In other words high level code (scene graph) shouldn't be concerned with them as much as it is not concerned with vertex buffers, gpu states and so on. This is not just for the shake of design elegance: if I expose shaders to high level code, I'll end up with content creators (artists) dealing with low level shaders parameters and possibliy multiple versions of each shader (HLSL, GLSL).


The solution you've offered sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Learn from others! I collected as many engines as I could and I'm scanning all of them when I'm on a new topic, if only for good ideas. Their experience is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by DadleFish
Well, the examples I gave you as well as the cutdown of Ogre shown in the thread are full featured ones. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't fear it, as we're not talking about something nearly in the magnitude of 100K of lines.


Yes, thanks to you and swiftcoder I'm now convinced that it's possible to have a full featured wrapper with a reasonable amount of code. However I'm still concerned with the flexibility issue. I see my engine also as a place for experiments, so what happens if the newest nVidia or Ati GPU offers a new OpenGL extension and I want to experiment with it? If I build my render on top of a DX/GL wrapper I don't have access to it. Maybe my wrapper should have an extensions or capabilities system.


Quote:
Original post by DadleFish
I can't understand why would you use a visitor pattern.


Because if the scenegraph doesn't know about the render, the only solution is to have the render visiting the scenegraph. The render is the visitor, the scenegraph is the visited.


Quote:
Original post by DadleFish
Perhaps I wasn't too clear, sorry. The whole idea of abstraction is that the upper layer doesn't know which API is used by the renderer object(s). It only knows the renderer object(s) interfaces, and works with them. My intention was to hide the API from the scenegraph, for example; you would call "m_pRenderer->ClearScreen()" and you wouldn't know or care how it's done.

However, I do not think that the scenegraph should be ignorant to the actual existence of the renderer (like in the DOCVIEW pattern you've mentioned). I can't really understand why would you do it. After all, it is probable that you would have a single renderer object in your system, just like you have std::cout, and it's unreasonable IMHO that stdout would search for relevant information. Besides, its the scenegraph job to actually feed the renderer with meshes, textures and so on in order for the renderer to send them as polygons to the video adapter.


That's the way it is generally done, but I want to be even more radical and completely hide the renderer interface from the scene code, because the scene code doesn't really need to know it.
Why should the scene graph feed the render with meshes and textures? The job of the scene graph is to store and organize data, nothing more than that. The render can perfectly read the coordinates of textures and meshes stored in the scenegraph nodes and load them without further external help. Moreover the scenegraph can't even know what resources the render needs in a particular moment unless it implements some visibility algorithm, but again visibility is not something it should be concerned with, that's a task for the render.
Obviously some parts of high level code will know the renderer interface, to be precise the parts that instantiate it (getting the object from a factory), calls the render method for every frame and destroy it on cleanup.

I know that this might sound odd from an object oriented perspective, but it's a common solution in generic programming. Think about STL: you have data structures and algorithms and data structures know nothing about algorithms, they just do their job of representing data. In my case the data structure is a graph (a DAG to be precise), while the render uses the appropriate algorithms to visit it and gather informations. I'm really considering the possibility of using BGL (the Boost Graph Library) for this.



Quote:
Original post by DadleFish
As for physics and AI - these are indeed higher than the scenegraph and they manipulate it. The renderer isn't such a case. Even if you think in docview terms, you wouldn't say the physics/AI are views manipulating the doc. They are more of the logic.


That's correct. I mentioned the DocView pattern just as an example, but I'm not strictly following it. What I have in mind is a central data structure (the scene graph) with the various engine subsystems accessing and modifying it. Ideally the data structure will never know about the subsystems and the subsystems will depend only on the data structure (ingoring each other).


Original post by DadleFish
The idea behind abstraction isn't minimizing the code. The idea is to get the core systems of your application (game) ignorant to their actual environment. Something like "hey, read that house from a file and display it, I don't care how you do it"; so you'd abstract your OS and your rendering API. The idea is to separate the logic from the actual tidbits of DOING stuff, so you can later replace the API with anything else.


I perfectly agree, but I would add that if abstraction is good, orthogonality (as implemented in STL, BGL and other generic libraries) is even better, since it adds an even higher degree of abstraction, true separation of concerns and generally also minimizes the code.

Maybe my solution will turn out to be overkill, but after all this is not a real project, I'm not going to create a new Unreal Engine or some sort of killer application, it's just a way to experiment and learn.

Thank again for your comments and suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting topic:
Perhaps a combination of both could be a solution. A RenderDevice that abstracts the API with very few functions, you don't need many, and a plugable Renderer that iterates over the scene graph and abstracts the rendering algorithm.
I agree to use a high level material definition, perhaps some more flexible like in doom3, and let the Renderer generate the shader code from it in form of an abstract syntax tree (CodeDOM) that the RenderDevice uses to create the HLSL/GLSL/Cg or even ARB_fp shader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before I started coding my game engine (which I now only expand when my current game project needs new features), I went and downloaded several open-source engines off the web, and dissected them minutely.

The two rendering engines that most influence my renderer abstraction were IrrLicht and OGRE, each of which takes a completely different approach. However, it is definitely worth noting that each of these is primarily a rendering engine, and neither is a full blown game engine (i.e. no sound, no AI, etc.).
A useful game engine to browse is the Crystal Space engine, although it is not quite complete, and I personally regard it as a little over-designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by will75
However I'm still concerned with the flexibility issue. I see my engine also as a place for experiments, so what happens if the newest nVidia or Ati GPU offers a new OpenGL extension and I want to experiment with it? If I build my render on top of a DX/GL wrapper I don't have access to it. Maybe my wrapper should have an extensions or capabilities system.


Don't worry too much about the future - like I said, if you will, you won't have anything in the present.

Look at it this way. If the whole concept changes dramatically, then you'll probably have to change critical parts of your engine so that you will adhere to these changes. If the changes will not be so dramatic, you will be able to port your engine in a reasonable time.

Anyway, I really think that you're jumping ahead of yourself here. Start with SOMETHING. Even if you make mistakes (and it's quite probable that you will), you will learn from them and will be able to move up and forward.

Quote:
Original post by will75
That's the way it is generally done, but I want to be even more radical and completely hide the renderer interface from the scene code, because the scene code doesn't really need to know it.


Now here's an interesting idea. Let's look deeper into your idea. First of all, correct; the scenegraph is merely a database. However, SOMETHING has to know about the rendering API and about the scenegraph, in order to go from point A to point B. This "something" can reside in the SG, or in the Renderer, or in an external place; the way I do it, for example, there is another manager (which I call scene manager) which is familiar with the SG and the Renderer.

Visiting may or may not be a good idea. You should look carefully into performance issues that may rise. Think about optimizations that the SG can do temporally, and the renderer cannot (being ignorant of the actual data). And this is just off the top of my head. I'm sure we can find other issues with all the alternatives. Maybe some sequences will be in place.

Quote:
Original post by will75
Ideally the data structure will never know about the subsystems and the subsystems will depend only on the data structure (ingoring each other).


Keep in mind that being very generic also keeps you away from specific problem-domains optimizations. Eberly gives a nice example in his book about 3D game engine architecture. He contemplates why a self made vector class may be better than std::vector, and he does have some interesting and convincing points there.

Quote:
Original post by will75
I perfectly agree, but I would add that if abstraction is good, orthogonality (as implemented in STL, BGL and other generic libraries) is even better, since it adds an even higher degree of abstraction, true separation of concerns and generally also minimizes the code.


One thing I've learned from many years of designing large-scale systems is - Just try not to go too fanatically into a certain concept. Don't throw yourself at a good concept (like an abstraction) so deeply that you will lose yourself in the details. Beautiful code is really a nice thing - but the bottom line is that it should work :-) If your generalization costs you in performance, memory, etc. - it may not be able to just cut it.

Quote:
Original post by will75
Maybe my solution will turn out to be overkill, but after all this is not a real project, I'm not going to create a new Unreal Engine or some sort of killer application, it's just a way to experiment and learn.


By all means, this is a good, sane approach :-) You will no doubt learn from the experience.

Eldad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remeber I tried that some years ago. I ended up with the insight that wrapping the APIs will cost me more than it's worth. If it's "windows only" DirectX is fine. If not OpenGL is a portable API that doesn't need to be wrapped. Every graphics card comes with a good OpenGL driver now. May be console hardware is a different story as it migh not have OpenGL support but IIRC the only console without OpenGL is xbox. So it might be easier to code an opengl version and an xbox version later on. Of course this doesn't mean to distribute all API dependent code all over the project but I question the necessity for strict wrapping in a lot of projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Original post by will75
One thing that still concerns me are shaders: (..) The only solution I can think of is creating an abstraction of gpu shaders, a material system that procedurally generates low level gpu shader code, completely hiding the process to the user and exposing instead an high level modular interface (and possibly also a graphical editor).

Am trying to work with something similar at the moment... effectively, the gfx module is expected to provide certain 'effects' -- either texture based or procedurally generated maps for colour, diffuse, bump luminosity, glosiness, reflection, whatever. These effect are basic layers which, combined together in user-defined order, form complete materials which are then applied to geometry. Exactly how these effects are generated is left to specific implemenation of the rendering module. In the end it's not very different from how 3d packages allow the artist to define exact appearance for their creations... and as such hopefully more intuitive for content creators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By EddieK
      Hello. I'm trying to make an android game and I have come across a problem. I want to draw different map layers at different Z depths so that some of the tiles are drawn above the player while others are drawn under him. But there's an issue where the pixels with alpha drawn above the player. This is the code i'm using:
      int setup(){ GLES20.glEnable(GLES20.GL_DEPTH_TEST); GLES20.glEnable(GL10.GL_ALPHA_TEST); GLES20.glEnable(GLES20.GL_TEXTURE_2D); } int render(){ GLES20.glClearColor(0, 0, 0, 0); GLES20.glClear(GLES20.GL_ALPHA_BITS); GLES20.glClear(GLES20.GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); GLES20.glClear(GLES20.GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); GLES20.glBlendFunc(GLES20.GL_ONE, GL10.GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA); // do the binding of textures and drawing vertices } My vertex shader:
      uniform mat4 MVPMatrix; // model-view-projection matrix uniform mat4 projectionMatrix; attribute vec4 position; attribute vec2 textureCoords; attribute vec4 color; attribute vec3 normal; varying vec4 outColor; varying vec2 outTexCoords; varying vec3 outNormal; void main() { outNormal = normal; outTexCoords = textureCoords; outColor = color; gl_Position = MVPMatrix * position; } My fragment shader:
      precision highp float; uniform sampler2D texture; varying vec4 outColor; varying vec2 outTexCoords; varying vec3 outNormal; void main() { vec4 color = texture2D(texture, outTexCoords) * outColor; gl_FragColor = vec4(color.r,color.g,color.b,color.a);//color.a); } I have attached a picture of how it looks. You can see the black squares near the tree. These squares should be transparent as they are in the png image:

      Its strange that in this picture instead of alpha or just black color it displays the grass texture beneath the player and the tree:

      Any ideas on how to fix this?
       
      Thanks in advance
       
       
    • By DiligentDev
      This article uses material originally posted on Diligent Graphics web site.
      Introduction
      Graphics APIs have come a long way from small set of basic commands allowing limited control of configurable stages of early 3D accelerators to very low-level programming interfaces exposing almost every aspect of the underlying graphics hardware. Next-generation APIs, Direct3D12 by Microsoft and Vulkan by Khronos are relatively new and have only started getting widespread adoption and support from hardware vendors, while Direct3D11 and OpenGL are still considered industry standard. New APIs can provide substantial performance and functional improvements, but may not be supported by older hardware. An application targeting wide range of platforms needs to support Direct3D11 and OpenGL. New APIs will not give any advantage when used with old paradigms. It is totally possible to add Direct3D12 support to an existing renderer by implementing Direct3D11 interface through Direct3D12, but this will give zero benefits. Instead, new approaches and rendering architectures that leverage flexibility provided by the next-generation APIs are expected to be developed.
      There are at least four APIs (Direct3D11, Direct3D12, OpenGL/GLES, Vulkan, plus Apple's Metal for iOS and osX platforms) that a cross-platform 3D application may need to support. Writing separate code paths for all APIs is clearly not an option for any real-world application and the need for a cross-platform graphics abstraction layer is evident. The following is the list of requirements that I believe such layer needs to satisfy:
      Lightweight abstractions: the API should be as close to the underlying native APIs as possible to allow an application leverage all available low-level functionality. In many cases this requirement is difficult to achieve because specific features exposed by different APIs may vary considerably. Low performance overhead: the abstraction layer needs to be efficient from performance point of view. If it introduces considerable amount of overhead, there is no point in using it. Convenience: the API needs to be convenient to use. It needs to assist developers in achieving their goals not limiting their control of the graphics hardware. Multithreading: ability to efficiently parallelize work is in the core of Direct3D12 and Vulkan and one of the main selling points of the new APIs. Support for multithreading in a cross-platform layer is a must. Extensibility: no matter how well the API is designed, it still introduces some level of abstraction. In some cases the most efficient way to implement certain functionality is to directly use native API. The abstraction layer needs to provide seamless interoperability with the underlying native APIs to provide a way for the app to add features that may be missing. Diligent Engine is designed to solve these problems. Its main goal is to take advantages of the next-generation APIs such as Direct3D12 and Vulkan, but at the same time provide support for older platforms via Direct3D11, OpenGL and OpenGLES. Diligent Engine exposes common C++ front-end for all supported platforms and provides interoperability with underlying native APIs. It also supports integration with Unity and is designed to be used as graphics subsystem in a standalone game engine, Unity native plugin or any other 3D application. Full source code is available for download at GitHub and is free to use.
      Overview
      Diligent Engine API takes some features from Direct3D11 and Direct3D12 as well as introduces new concepts to hide certain platform-specific details and make the system easy to use. It contains the following main components:
      Render device (IRenderDevice  interface) is responsible for creating all other objects (textures, buffers, shaders, pipeline states, etc.).
      Device context (IDeviceContext interface) is the main interface for recording rendering commands. Similar to Direct3D11, there are immediate context and deferred contexts (which in Direct3D11 implementation map directly to the corresponding context types). Immediate context combines command queue and command list recording functionality. It records commands and submits the command list for execution when it contains sufficient number of commands. Deferred contexts are designed to only record command lists that can be submitted for execution through the immediate context.
      An alternative way to design the API would be to expose command queue and command lists directly. This approach however does not map well to Direct3D11 and OpenGL. Besides, some functionality (such as dynamic descriptor allocation) can be much more efficiently implemented when it is known that a command list is recorded by a certain deferred context from some thread.
      The approach taken in the engine does not limit scalability as the application is expected to create one deferred context per thread, and internally every deferred context records a command list in lock-free fashion. At the same time this approach maps well to older APIs.
      In current implementation, only one immediate context that uses default graphics command queue is created. To support multiple GPUs or multiple command queue types (compute, copy, etc.), it is natural to have one immediate contexts per queue. Cross-context synchronization utilities will be necessary.
      Swap Chain (ISwapChain interface). Swap chain interface represents a chain of back buffers and is responsible for showing the final rendered image on the screen.
      Render device, device contexts and swap chain are created during the engine initialization.
      Resources (ITexture and IBuffer interfaces). There are two types of resources - textures and buffers. There are many different texture types (2D textures, 3D textures, texture array, cubmepas, etc.) that can all be represented by ITexture interface.
      Resources Views (ITextureView and IBufferView interfaces). While textures and buffers are mere data containers, texture views and buffer views describe how the data should be interpreted. For instance, a 2D texture can be used as a render target for rendering commands or as a shader resource.
      Pipeline State (IPipelineState interface). GPU pipeline contains many configurable stages (depth-stencil, rasterizer and blend states, different shader stage, etc.). Direct3D11 uses coarse-grain objects to set all stage parameters at once (for instance, a rasterizer object encompasses all rasterizer attributes), while OpenGL contains myriad functions to fine-grain control every individual attribute of every stage. Both methods do not map very well to modern graphics hardware that combines all states into one monolithic state under the hood. Direct3D12 directly exposes pipeline state object in the API, and Diligent Engine uses the same approach.
      Shader Resource Binding (IShaderResourceBinding interface). Shaders are programs that run on the GPU. Shaders may access various resources (textures and buffers), and setting correspondence between shader variables and actual resources is called resource binding. Resource binding implementation varies considerably between different API. Diligent Engine introduces a new object called shader resource binding that encompasses all resources needed by all shaders in a certain pipeline state.
      API Basics
      Creating Resources
      Device resources are created by the render device. The two main resource types are buffers, which represent linear memory, and textures, which use memory layouts optimized for fast filtering. Graphics APIs usually have a native object that represents linear buffer. Diligent Engine uses IBuffer interface as an abstraction for a native buffer. To create a buffer, one needs to populate BufferDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateBuffer() method as in the following example:
      BufferDesc BuffDesc; BufferDesc.Name = "Uniform buffer"; BuffDesc.BindFlags = BIND_UNIFORM_BUFFER; BuffDesc.Usage = USAGE_DYNAMIC; BuffDesc.uiSizeInBytes = sizeof(ShaderConstants); BuffDesc.CPUAccessFlags = CPU_ACCESS_WRITE; m_pDevice->CreateBuffer( BuffDesc, BufferData(), &m_pConstantBuffer ); While there is usually just one buffer object, different APIs use very different approaches to represent textures. For instance, in Direct3D11, there are ID3D11Texture1D, ID3D11Texture2D, and ID3D11Texture3D objects. In OpenGL, there is individual object for every texture dimension (1D, 2D, 3D, Cube), which may be a texture array, which may also be multisampled (i.e. GL_TEXTURE_2D_MULTISAMPLE_ARRAY). As a result there are nine different GL texture types that Diligent Engine may create under the hood. In Direct3D12, there is only one resource interface. Diligent Engine hides all these details in ITexture interface. There is only one  IRenderDevice::CreateTexture() method that is capable of creating all texture types. Dimension, format, array size and all other parameters are specified by the members of the TextureDesc structure:
      TextureDesc TexDesc; TexDesc.Name = "My texture 2D"; TexDesc.Type = TEXTURE_TYPE_2D; TexDesc.Width = 1024; TexDesc.Height = 1024; TexDesc.Format = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM; TexDesc.Usage = USAGE_DEFAULT; TexDesc.BindFlags = BIND_SHADER_RESOURCE | BIND_RENDER_TARGET | BIND_UNORDERED_ACCESS; TexDesc.Name = "Sample 2D Texture"; m_pRenderDevice->CreateTexture( TexDesc, TextureData(), &m_pTestTex ); If native API supports multithreaded resource creation, textures and buffers can be created by multiple threads simultaneously.
      Interoperability with native API provides access to the native buffer/texture objects and also allows creating Diligent Engine objects from native handles. It allows applications seamlessly integrate native API-specific code with Diligent Engine.
      Next-generation APIs allow fine level-control over how resources are allocated. Diligent Engine does not currently expose this functionality, but it can be added by implementing IResourceAllocator interface that encapsulates specifics of resource allocation and providing this interface to CreateBuffer() or CreateTexture() methods. If null is provided, default allocator should be used.
      Initializing the Pipeline State
      As it was mentioned earlier, Diligent Engine follows next-gen APIs to configure the graphics/compute pipeline. One big Pipelines State Object (PSO) encompasses all required states (all shader stages, input layout description, depth stencil, rasterizer and blend state descriptions etc.). This approach maps directly to Direct3D12/Vulkan, but is also beneficial for older APIs as it eliminates pipeline misconfiguration errors. With many individual calls tweaking various GPU pipeline settings it is very easy to forget to set one of the states or assume the stage is already properly configured when in fact it is not. Using pipeline state object helps avoid these problems as all stages are configured at once.
      Creating Shaders
      While in earlier APIs shaders were bound separately, in the next-generation APIs as well as in Diligent Engine shaders are part of the pipeline state object. The biggest challenge when authoring shaders is that Direct3D and OpenGL/Vulkan use different shader languages (while Apple uses yet another language in their Metal API). Maintaining two versions of every shader is not an option for real applications and Diligent Engine implements shader source code converter that allows shaders authored in HLSL to be translated to GLSL. To create a shader, one needs to populate ShaderCreationAttribs structure. SourceLanguage member of this structure tells the system which language the shader is authored in:
      SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_DEFAULT - The shader source language matches the underlying graphics API: HLSL for Direct3D11/Direct3D12 mode, and GLSL for OpenGL and OpenGLES modes. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_HLSL - The shader source is in HLSL. For OpenGL and OpenGLES modes, the source code will be converted to GLSL. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_GLSL - The shader source is in GLSL. There is currently no GLSL to HLSL converter, so this value should only be used for OpenGL and OpenGLES modes. There are two ways to provide the shader source code. The first way is to use Source member. The second way is to provide a file path in FilePath member. Since the engine is entirely decoupled from the platform and the host file system is platform-dependent, the structure exposes pShaderSourceStreamFactory member that is intended to provide the engine access to the file system. If FilePath is provided, shader source factory must also be provided. If the shader source contains any #include directives, the source stream factory will also be used to load these files. The engine provides default implementation for every supported platform that should be sufficient in most cases. Custom implementation can be provided when needed.
      When sampling a texture in a shader, the texture sampler was traditionally specified as separate object that was bound to the pipeline at run time or set as part of the texture object itself. However, in most cases it is known beforehand what kind of sampler will be used in the shader. Next-generation APIs expose new type of sampler called static sampler that can be initialized directly in the pipeline state. Diligent Engine exposes this functionality: when creating a shader, textures can be assigned static samplers. If static sampler is assigned, it will always be used instead of the one initialized in the texture shader resource view. To initialize static samplers, prepare an array of StaticSamplerDesc structures and initialize StaticSamplers and NumStaticSamplers members. Static samplers are more efficient and it is highly recommended to use them whenever possible. On older APIs, static samplers are emulated via generic sampler objects.
      The following is an example of shader initialization:
      ShaderCreationAttribs Attrs; Attrs.Desc.Name = "MyPixelShader"; Attrs.FilePath = "MyShaderFile.fx"; Attrs.SearchDirectories = "shaders;shaders\\inc;"; Attrs.EntryPoint = "MyPixelShader"; Attrs.Desc.ShaderType = SHADER_TYPE_PIXEL; Attrs.SourceLanguage = SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_HLSL; BasicShaderSourceStreamFactory BasicSSSFactory(Attrs.SearchDirectories); Attrs.pShaderSourceStreamFactory = &BasicSSSFactory; ShaderVariableDesc ShaderVars[] = {     {"g_StaticTexture", SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_STATIC},     {"g_MutableTexture", SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_MUTABLE},     {"g_DynamicTexture", SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_DYNAMIC} }; Attrs.Desc.VariableDesc = ShaderVars; Attrs.Desc.NumVariables = _countof(ShaderVars); Attrs.Desc.DefaultVariableType = SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_STATIC; StaticSamplerDesc StaticSampler; StaticSampler.Desc.MinFilter = FILTER_TYPE_LINEAR; StaticSampler.Desc.MagFilter = FILTER_TYPE_LINEAR; StaticSampler.Desc.MipFilter = FILTER_TYPE_LINEAR; StaticSampler.TextureName = "g_MutableTexture"; Attrs.Desc.NumStaticSamplers = 1; Attrs.Desc.StaticSamplers = &StaticSampler; ShaderMacroHelper Macros; Macros.AddShaderMacro("USE_SHADOWS", 1); Macros.AddShaderMacro("NUM_SHADOW_SAMPLES", 4); Macros.Finalize(); Attrs.Macros = Macros; RefCntAutoPtr<IShader> pShader; m_pDevice->CreateShader( Attrs, &pShader );
      Creating the Pipeline State Object
      After all required shaders are created, the rest of the fields of the PipelineStateDesc structure provide depth-stencil, rasterizer, and blend state descriptions, the number and format of render targets, input layout format, etc. For instance, rasterizer state can be described as follows:
      PipelineStateDesc PSODesc; RasterizerStateDesc &RasterizerDesc = PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RasterizerDesc; RasterizerDesc.FillMode = FILL_MODE_SOLID; RasterizerDesc.CullMode = CULL_MODE_NONE; RasterizerDesc.FrontCounterClockwise = True; RasterizerDesc.ScissorEnable = True; RasterizerDesc.AntialiasedLineEnable = False; Depth-stencil and blend states are defined in a similar fashion.
      Another important thing that pipeline state object encompasses is the input layout description that defines how inputs to the vertex shader, which is the very first shader stage, should be read from the memory. Input layout may define several vertex streams that contain values of different formats and sizes:
      // Define input layout InputLayoutDesc &Layout = PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.InputLayout; LayoutElement TextLayoutElems[] = {     LayoutElement( 0, 0, 3, VT_FLOAT32, False ),     LayoutElement( 1, 0, 4, VT_UINT8, True ),     LayoutElement( 2, 0, 2, VT_FLOAT32, False ), }; Layout.LayoutElements = TextLayoutElems; Layout.NumElements = _countof( TextLayoutElems ); Finally, pipeline state defines primitive topology type. When all required members are initialized, a pipeline state object can be created by IRenderDevice::CreatePipelineState() method:
      // Define shader and primitive topology PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.PrimitiveTopologyType = PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TYPE_TRIANGLE; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.pVS = pVertexShader; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.pPS = pPixelShader; PSODesc.Name = "My pipeline state"; m_pDev->CreatePipelineState(PSODesc, &m_pPSO); When PSO object is bound to the pipeline, the engine invokes all API-specific commands to set all states specified by the object. In case of Direct3D12 this maps directly to setting the D3D12 PSO object. In case of Direct3D11, this involves setting individual state objects (such as rasterizer and blend states), shaders, input layout etc. In case of OpenGL, this requires a number of fine-grain state tweaking calls. Diligent Engine keeps track of currently bound states and only calls functions to update these states that have actually changed.
      Binding Shader Resources
      Direct3D11 and OpenGL utilize fine-grain resource binding models, where an application binds individual buffers and textures to certain shader or program resource binding slots. Direct3D12 uses a very different approach, where resource descriptors are grouped into tables, and an application can bind all resources in the table at once by setting the table in the command list. Resource binding model in Diligent Engine is designed to leverage this new method. It introduces a new object called shader resource binding that encapsulates all resource bindings required for all shaders in a certain pipeline state. It also introduces the classification of shader variables based on the frequency of expected change that helps the engine group them into tables under the hood:
      Static variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_STATIC) are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. Mutable variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_MUTABLE) define resources that are expected to change on a per-material frequency. Examples may include diffuse textures, normal maps etc. Dynamic variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_DYNAMIC) are expected to change frequently and randomly. Shader variable type must be specified during shader creation by populating an array of ShaderVariableDesc structures and initializing ShaderCreationAttribs::Desc::VariableDesc and ShaderCreationAttribs::Desc::NumVariables members (see example of shader creation above).
      Static variables cannot be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. They are bound directly to the shader object. For instance, a shadow map texture is not expected to change after it is created, so it can be bound directly to the shader:
      PixelShader->GetShaderVariable( "g_tex2DShadowMap" )->Set( pShadowMapSRV ); Mutable and dynamic variables are bound via a new Shader Resource Binding object (SRB) that is created by the pipeline state (IPipelineState::CreateShaderResourceBinding()):
      m_pPSO->CreateShaderResourceBinding(&m_pSRB); Note that an SRB is only compatible with the pipeline state it was created from. SRB object inherits all static bindings from shaders in the pipeline, but is not allowed to change them.
      Mutable resources can only be set once for every instance of a shader resource binding. Such resources are intended to define specific material properties. For instance, a diffuse texture for a specific material is not expected to change once the material is defined and can be set right after the SRB object has been created:
      m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_PIXEL, "tex2DDiffuse")->Set(pDiffuseTexSRV); In some cases it is necessary to bind a new resource to a variable every time a draw command is invoked. Such variables should be labeled as dynamic, which will allow setting them multiple times through the same SRB object:
      m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "cbRandomAttribs")->Set(pRandomAttrsCB); Under the hood, the engine pre-allocates descriptor tables for static and mutable resources when an SRB objcet is created. Space for dynamic resources is dynamically allocated at run time. Static and mutable resources are thus more efficient and should be used whenever possible.
      As you can see, Diligent Engine does not expose low-level details of how resources are bound to shader variables. One reason for this is that these details are very different for various APIs. The other reason is that using low-level binding methods is extremely error-prone: it is very easy to forget to bind some resource, or bind incorrect resource such as bind a buffer to the variable that is in fact a texture, especially during shader development when everything changes fast. Diligent Engine instead relies on shader reflection system to automatically query the list of all shader variables. Grouping variables based on three types mentioned above allows the engine to create optimized layout and take heavy lifting of matching resources to API-specific resource location, register or descriptor in the table.
      This post gives more details about the resource binding model in Diligent Engine.
      Setting the Pipeline State and Committing Shader Resources
      Before any draw or compute command can be invoked, the pipeline state needs to be bound to the context:
      m_pContext->SetPipelineState(m_pPSO); Under the hood, the engine sets the internal PSO object in the command list or calls all the required native API functions to properly configure all pipeline stages.
      The next step is to bind all required shader resources to the GPU pipeline, which is accomplished by IDeviceContext::CommitShaderResources() method:
      m_pContext->CommitShaderResources(m_pSRB, COMMIT_SHADER_RESOURCES_FLAG_TRANSITION_RESOURCES); The method takes a pointer to the shader resource binding object and makes all resources the object holds available for the shaders. In the case of D3D12, this only requires setting appropriate descriptor tables in the command list. For older APIs, this typically requires setting all resources individually.
      Next-generation APIs require the application to track the state of every resource and explicitly inform the system about all state transitions. For instance, if a texture was used as render target before, while the next draw command is going to use it as shader resource, a transition barrier needs to be executed. Diligent Engine does the heavy lifting of state tracking.  When CommitShaderResources() method is called with COMMIT_SHADER_RESOURCES_FLAG_TRANSITION_RESOURCES flag, the engine commits and transitions resources to correct states at the same time. Note that transitioning resources does introduce some overhead. The engine tracks state of every resource and it will not issue the barrier if the state is already correct. But checking resource state is an overhead that can sometimes be avoided. The engine provides IDeviceContext::TransitionShaderResources() method that only transitions resources:
      m_pContext->TransitionShaderResources(m_pPSO, m_pSRB); In some scenarios it is more efficient to transition resources once and then only commit them.
      Invoking Draw Command
      The final step is to set states that are not part of the PSO, such as render targets, vertex and index buffers. Diligent Engine uses Direct3D11-syle API that is translated to other native API calls under the hood:
      ITextureView *pRTVs[] = {m_pRTV}; m_pContext->SetRenderTargets(_countof( pRTVs ), pRTVs, m_pDSV); // Clear render target and depth buffer const float zero[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0}; m_pContext->ClearRenderTarget(nullptr, zero); m_pContext->ClearDepthStencil(nullptr, CLEAR_DEPTH_FLAG, 1.f); // Set vertex and index buffers IBuffer *buffer[] = {m_pVertexBuffer}; Uint32 offsets[] = {0}; Uint32 strides[] = {sizeof(MyVertex)}; m_pContext->SetVertexBuffers(0, 1, buffer, strides, offsets, SET_VERTEX_BUFFERS_FLAG_RESET); m_pContext->SetIndexBuffer(m_pIndexBuffer, 0); Different native APIs use various set of function to execute draw commands depending on command details (if the command is indexed, instanced or both, what offsets in the source buffers are used etc.). For instance, there are 5 draw commands in Direct3D11 and more than 9 commands in OpenGL with something like glDrawElementsInstancedBaseVertexBaseInstance not uncommon. Diligent Engine hides all details with single IDeviceContext::Draw() method that takes takes DrawAttribs structure as an argument. The structure members define all attributes required to perform the command (primitive topology, number of vertices or indices, if draw call is indexed or not, if draw call is instanced or not, if draw call is indirect or not, etc.). For example:
      DrawAttribs attrs; attrs.IsIndexed = true; attrs.IndexType = VT_UINT16; attrs.NumIndices = 36; attrs.Topology = PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_LIST; pContext->Draw(attrs); For compute commands, there is IDeviceContext::DispatchCompute() method that takes DispatchComputeAttribs structure that defines compute grid dimension.
      Source Code
      Full engine source code is available on GitHub and is free to use. The repository contains two samples, asteroids performance benchmark and example Unity project that uses Diligent Engine in native plugin.
      AntTweakBar sample is Diligent Engine’s “Hello World” example.

       
      Atmospheric scattering sample is a more advanced example. It demonstrates how Diligent Engine can be used to implement various rendering tasks: loading textures from files, using complex shaders, rendering to multiple render targets, using compute shaders and unordered access views, etc.

      Asteroids performance benchmark is based on this demo developed by Intel. It renders 50,000 unique textured asteroids and allows comparing performance of Direct3D11 and Direct3D12 implementations. Every asteroid is a combination of one of 1000 unique meshes and one of 10 unique textures.

      Finally, there is an example project that shows how Diligent Engine can be integrated with Unity.

      Future Work
      The engine is under active development. It currently supports Windows desktop, Universal Windows and Android platforms. Direct3D11, Direct3D12, OpenGL/GLES backends are now feature complete. Vulkan backend is coming next, and support for more platforms is planned.
    • By reenigne
      For those that don't know me. I am the individual who's two videos are listed here under setup for https://wiki.libsdl.org/Tutorials
      I also run grhmedia.com where I host the projects and code for the tutorials I have online.
      Recently, I received a notice from youtube they will be implementing their new policy in protecting video content as of which I won't be monetized till I meat there required number of viewers and views each month.

      Frankly, I'm pretty sick of youtube. I put up a video and someone else learns from it and puts up another video and because of the way youtube does their placement they end up with more views.
      Even guys that clearly post false information such as one individual who said GLEW 2.0 was broken because he didn't know how to compile it. He in short didn't know how to modify the script he used because he didn't understand make files and how the requirements of the compiler and library changes needed some different flags.

      At the end of the month when they implement this I will take down the content and host on my own server purely and it will be a paid system and or patreon. 

      I get my videos may be a bit dry, I generally figure people are there to learn how to do something and I rather not waste their time. 
      I used to also help people for free even those coming from the other videos. That won't be the case any more. I used to just take anyone emails and work with them my email is posted on the site.

      I don't expect to get the required number of subscribers in that time or increased views. Even if I did well it wouldn't take care of each reoccurring month.
      I figure this is simpler and I don't plan on putting some sort of exorbitant fee for a monthly subscription or the like.
      I was thinking on the lines of a few dollars 1,2, and 3 and the larger subscription gets you assistance with the content in the tutorials if needed that month.
      Maybe another fee if it is related but not directly in the content. 
      The fees would serve to cut down on the number of people who ask for help and maybe encourage some of the people to actually pay attention to what is said rather than do their own thing. That actually turns out to be 90% of the issues. I spent 6 hours helping one individual last week I must have asked him 20 times did you do exactly like I said in the video even pointed directly to the section. When he finally sent me a copy of the what he entered I knew then and there he had not. I circled it and I pointed out that wasn't what I said to do in the video. I didn't tell him what was wrong and how I knew that way he would go back and actually follow what it said to do. He then reported it worked. Yea, no kidding following directions works. But hey isn't alone and well its part of the learning process.

      So the point of this isn't to be a gripe session. I'm just looking for a bit of feed back. Do you think the fees are unreasonable?
      Should I keep the youtube channel and do just the fees with patreon or do you think locking the content to my site and require a subscription is an idea.

      I'm just looking at the fact it is unrealistic to think youtube/google will actually get stuff right or that youtube viewers will actually bother to start looking for more accurate videos. 
    • By Balma Alparisi
      i got error 1282 in my code.
      sf::ContextSettings settings; settings.majorVersion = 4; settings.minorVersion = 5; settings.attributeFlags = settings.Core; sf::Window window; window.create(sf::VideoMode(1600, 900), "Texture Unit Rectangle", sf::Style::Close, settings); window.setActive(true); window.setVerticalSyncEnabled(true); glewInit(); GLuint shaderProgram = createShaderProgram("FX/Rectangle.vss", "FX/Rectangle.fss"); float vertex[] = { -0.5f,0.5f,0.0f, 0.0f,0.0f, -0.5f,-0.5f,0.0f, 0.0f,1.0f, 0.5f,0.5f,0.0f, 1.0f,0.0f, 0.5,-0.5f,0.0f, 1.0f,1.0f, }; GLuint indices[] = { 0,1,2, 1,2,3, }; GLuint vao; glGenVertexArrays(1, &vao); glBindVertexArray(vao); GLuint vbo; glGenBuffers(1, &vbo); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vbo); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertex), vertex, GL_STATIC_DRAW); GLuint ebo; glGenBuffers(1, &ebo); glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, ebo); glBufferData(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(indices), indices,GL_STATIC_DRAW); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, false, sizeof(float) * 5, (void*)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); glVertexAttribPointer(1, 2, GL_FLOAT, false, sizeof(float) * 5, (void*)(sizeof(float) * 3)); glEnableVertexAttribArray(1); GLuint texture[2]; glGenTextures(2, texture); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[0]); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_S, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_T, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); sf::Image* imageOne = new sf::Image; bool isImageOneLoaded = imageOne->loadFromFile("Texture/container.jpg"); if (isImageOneLoaded) { glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, imageOne->getSize().x, imageOne->getSize().y, 0, GL_RGBA, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, imageOne->getPixelsPtr()); glGenerateMipmap(GL_TEXTURE_2D); } delete imageOne; glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE1); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[1]); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_S, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_T, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); sf::Image* imageTwo = new sf::Image; bool isImageTwoLoaded = imageTwo->loadFromFile("Texture/awesomeface.png"); if (isImageTwoLoaded) { glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, imageTwo->getSize().x, imageTwo->getSize().y, 0, GL_RGBA, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, imageTwo->getPixelsPtr()); glGenerateMipmap(GL_TEXTURE_2D); } delete imageTwo; glUniform1i(glGetUniformLocation(shaderProgram, "inTextureOne"), 0); glUniform1i(glGetUniformLocation(shaderProgram, "inTextureTwo"), 1); GLenum error = glGetError(); std::cout << error << std::endl; sf::Event event; bool isRunning = true; while (isRunning) { while (window.pollEvent(event)) { if (event.type == event.Closed) { isRunning = false; } } glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); if (isImageOneLoaded && isImageTwoLoaded) { glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[0]); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE1); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[1]); glUseProgram(shaderProgram); } glBindVertexArray(vao); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, 6, GL_UNSIGNED_INT, nullptr); glBindVertexArray(0); window.display(); } glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &vao); glDeleteBuffers(1, &vbo); glDeleteBuffers(1, &ebo); glDeleteProgram(shaderProgram); glDeleteTextures(2,texture); return 0; } and this is the vertex shader
      #version 450 core layout(location=0) in vec3 inPos; layout(location=1) in vec2 inTexCoord; out vec2 TexCoord; void main() { gl_Position=vec4(inPos,1.0); TexCoord=inTexCoord; } and the fragment shader
      #version 450 core in vec2 TexCoord; uniform sampler2D inTextureOne; uniform sampler2D inTextureTwo; out vec4 FragmentColor; void main() { FragmentColor=mix(texture(inTextureOne,TexCoord),texture(inTextureTwo,TexCoord),0.2); } I was expecting awesomeface.png on top of container.jpg

    • By khawk
      We've just released all of the source code for the NeHe OpenGL lessons on our Github page at https://github.com/gamedev-net/nehe-opengl. code - 43 total platforms, configurations, and languages are included.
      Now operated by GameDev.net, NeHe is located at http://nehe.gamedev.net where it has been a valuable resource for developers wanting to learn OpenGL and graphics programming.

      View full story
  • Advertisement