• Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By elect
      ok, so, we are having problems with our current mirror reflection implementation.
      At the moment we are doing it very simple, so for the i-th frame, we calculate the reflection vectors given the viewPoint and some predefined points on the mirror surface (position and normal).
      Then, using the least squared algorithm, we find the point that has the minimum distance from all these reflections vectors. This is going to be our virtual viewPoint (with the right orientation).
      After that, we render offscreen to a texture by setting the OpenGL camera on the virtual viewPoint.
      And finally we use the rendered texture on the mirror surface.
      So far this has always been fine, but now we are having some more strong constraints on accuracy.
      What are our best options given that:
      - we have a dynamic scene, the mirror and parts of the scene can change continuously from frame to frame
      - we have about 3k points (with normals) per mirror, calculated offline using some cad program (such as Catia)
      - all the mirror are always perfectly spherical (with different radius vertically and horizontally) and they are always convex
      - a scene can have up to 10 mirror
      - it should be fast enough also for vr (Htc Vive) on fastest gpus (only desktops)

      Looking around, some papers talk about calculating some caustic surface derivation offline, but I don't know if this suits my case
      Also, another paper, used some acceleration structures to detect the intersection between the reflection vectors and the scene, and then adjust the corresponding texture coordinate. This looks the most accurate but also very heavy from a computational point of view.

      Other than that, I couldn't find anything updated/exhaustive around, can you help me?
      Thanks in advance
    • By kanageddaamen
      Hello all,
      I am currently working on a game engine for use with my game development that I would like to be as flexible as possible.  As such the exact requirements for how things should work can't be nailed down to a specific implementation and I am looking for, at least now, a default good average case scenario design.
      Here is what I have implemented:
      Deferred rendering using OpenGL Arbitrary number of lights and shadow mapping Each rendered object, as defined by a set of geometry, textures, animation data, and a model matrix is rendered with its own draw call Skeletal animations implemented on the GPU.   Model matrix transformation implemented on the GPU Frustum and octree culling for optimization Here are my questions and concerns:
      Doing the skeletal animation on the GPU, currently, requires doing the skinning for each object multiple times per frame: once for the initial geometry rendering and once for the shadow map rendering for each light for which it is not culled.  This seems very inefficient.  Is there a way to do skeletal animation on the GPU only once across these render calls? Without doing the model matrix transformation on the CPU, I fail to see how I can easily batch objects with the same textures and shaders in a single draw call without passing a ton of matrix data to the GPU (an array of model matrices then an index for each vertex into that array for transformation purposes?) If I do the matrix transformations on the CPU, It seems I can't really do the skinning on the GPU as the pre-transformed vertexes will wreck havoc with the calculations, so this seems not viable unless I am missing something Overall it seems like simplest solution is to just do all of the vertex manipulation on the CPU and pass the pre-transformed data to the GPU, using vertex shaders that do basically nothing.  This doesn't seem the most efficient use of the graphics hardware, but could potentially reduce the number of draw calls needed.

      Really, I am looking for some advice on how to proceed with this, how something like this is typically handled.  Are the multiple draw calls and skinning calculations not a huge deal?  I would LIKE to save as much of the CPU's time per frame so it can be tasked with other things, as to keep CPU resources open to the implementation of the engine.  However, that becomes a moot point if the GPU becomes a bottleneck.
    • By DiligentDev
      I would like to introduce Diligent Engine, a project that I've been recently working on. Diligent Engine is a light-weight cross-platform abstraction layer between the application and the platform-specific graphics API. 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 front-end for all supported platforms and provides interoperability with underlying native API. Shader source code converter allows shaders authored in HLSL to be translated to GLSL and used on all platforms. Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity and is designed to be used as a graphics subsystem in a standalone game engine, Unity native plugin or any other 3D application. It is distributed under Apache 2.0 license and is free to use. Full source code is available for download on GitHub.
      True cross-platform Exact same client code for all supported platforms and rendering backends No #if defined(_WIN32) ... #elif defined(LINUX) ... #elif defined(ANDROID) ... No #if defined(D3D11) ... #elif defined(D3D12) ... #elif defined(OPENGL) ... Exact same HLSL shaders run on all platforms and all backends Modular design Components are clearly separated logically and physically and can be used as needed Only take what you need for your project (do not want to keep samples and tutorials in your codebase? Simply remove Samples submodule. Only need core functionality? Use only Core submodule) No 15000 lines-of-code files Clear object-based interface No global states Key graphics features: Automatic shader resource binding designed to leverage the next-generation rendering APIs Multithreaded command buffer generation 50,000 draw calls at 300 fps with D3D12 backend Descriptor, memory and resource state management Modern c++ features to make code fast and reliable The following platforms and low-level APIs are currently supported:
      Windows Desktop: Direct3D11, Direct3D12, OpenGL Universal Windows: Direct3D11, Direct3D12 Linux: OpenGL Android: OpenGLES MacOS: OpenGL iOS: OpenGLES API Basics
      The engine can perform initialization of the API or attach to already existing D3D11/D3D12 device or OpenGL/GLES context. For instance, the following code shows how the engine can be initialized in D3D12 mode:
      #include "RenderDeviceFactoryD3D12.h" using namespace Diligent; // ...  GetEngineFactoryD3D12Type GetEngineFactoryD3D12 = nullptr; // Load the dll and import GetEngineFactoryD3D12() function LoadGraphicsEngineD3D12(GetEngineFactoryD3D12); auto *pFactoryD3D11 = GetEngineFactoryD3D12(); EngineD3D12Attribs EngD3D12Attribs; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[0] = 1024; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[1] = 32; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[2] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[3] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.NumCommandsToFlushCmdList = 64; RefCntAutoPtr<IRenderDevice> pRenderDevice; RefCntAutoPtr<IDeviceContext> pImmediateContext; SwapChainDesc SwapChainDesc; RefCntAutoPtr<ISwapChain> pSwapChain; pFactoryD3D11->CreateDeviceAndContextsD3D12( EngD3D12Attribs, &pRenderDevice, &pImmediateContext, 0 ); pFactoryD3D11->CreateSwapChainD3D12( pRenderDevice, pImmediateContext, SwapChainDesc, hWnd, &pSwapChain ); 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. To create a buffer, you need to populate BufferDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateBuffer(). The following code creates a uniform (constant) buffer:
      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 ); Similar, to create a texture, populate TextureDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateTexture() as in the following example:
      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 ); Initializing Pipeline State
      Diligent Engine follows Direct3D12 style 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.)
      Creating Shaders
      To create a shader, populate ShaderCreationAttribs structure. An important member is ShaderCreationAttribs::SourceLanguage. The following are valid values for this member:
      SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_DEFAULT  - The shader source format matches the underlying graphics API: HLSL for D3D11 or D3D12 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. See shader converter for details. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_GLSL  - The shader source is in GLSL. There is currently no GLSL to HLSL converter. To allow grouping of resources based on the frequency of expected change, Diligent Engine introduces classification of shader variables:
      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. This post describes the resource binding model in Diligent Engine.
      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
      To create a pipeline state object, define instance of PipelineStateDesc structure. The structure defines the pipeline specifics such as if the pipeline is a compute pipeline, number and format of render targets as well as depth-stencil format:
      // This is a graphics pipeline PSODesc.IsComputePipeline = false; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.NumRenderTargets = 1; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RTVFormats[0] = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM_SRGB; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.DSVFormat = TEX_FORMAT_D32_FLOAT; The structure also defines depth-stencil, rasterizer, blend state, input layout and other parameters. For instance, rasterizer state can be defined as in the code snippet below:
      // Init rasterizer state RasterizerStateDesc &RasterizerDesc = PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RasterizerDesc; RasterizerDesc.FillMode = FILL_MODE_SOLID; RasterizerDesc.CullMode = CULL_MODE_NONE; RasterizerDesc.FrontCounterClockwise = True; RasterizerDesc.ScissorEnable = True; //RSDesc.MultisampleEnable = false; // do not allow msaa (fonts would be degraded) RasterizerDesc.AntialiasedLineEnable = False; When all fields are populated, call IRenderDevice::CreatePipelineState() to create the PSO:
      m_pDev->CreatePipelineState(PSODesc, &m_pPSO); Binding Shader Resources
      Shader resource binding in Diligent Engine is based on grouping variables in 3 different groups (static, mutable and dynamic). Static variables 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. They are bound directly to the shader object:
      PixelShader->GetShaderVariable( "g_tex2DShadowMap" )->Set( pShadowMapSRV ); Mutable and dynamic variables are bound via a new object called Shader Resource Binding (SRB), which is created by the pipeline state:
      m_pPSO->CreateShaderResourceBinding(&m_pSRB); Dynamic and mutable resources are then bound through SRB object:
      m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "tex2DDiffuse")->Set(pDiffuseTexSRV); m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "cbRandomAttribs")->Set(pRandomAttrsCB); The difference between mutable and dynamic resources is that mutable ones can only be set once for every instance of a shader resource binding. Dynamic resources can be set multiple times. It is important to properly set the variable type as this may affect performance. Static variables are generally most efficient, followed by mutable. Dynamic variables are most expensive from performance point of view. This post explains shader resource binding in more details.
      Setting the Pipeline State and Invoking Draw Command
      Before any draw command can be invoked, all required vertex and index buffers as well as the pipeline state should be bound to the device context:
      // Clear render target const float zero[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0}; m_pContext->ClearRenderTarget(nullptr, zero); // 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); m_pContext->SetPipelineState(m_pPSO); Also, all shader resources must be committed to the device context:
      m_pContext->CommitShaderResources(m_pSRB, COMMIT_SHADER_RESOURCES_FLAG_TRANSITION_RESOURCES); When all required states and resources are bound, IDeviceContext::Draw() can be used to execute draw command or IDeviceContext::DispatchCompute() can be used to execute compute command. Note that for a draw command, graphics pipeline must be bound, and for dispatch command, compute pipeline must be bound. Draw() 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); Tutorials and Samples
      The GitHub repository contains a number of tutorials and sample applications that demonstrate the API usage.
      Tutorial 01 - Hello Triangle This tutorial shows how to render a simple triangle using Diligent Engine API.   Tutorial 02 - Cube This tutorial demonstrates how to render an actual 3D object, a cube. It shows how to load shaders from files, create and use vertex, index and uniform buffers.   Tutorial 03 - Texturing This tutorial demonstrates how to apply a texture to a 3D object. It shows how to load a texture from file, create shader resource binding object and how to sample a texture in the shader.   Tutorial 04 - Instancing This tutorial demonstrates how to use instancing to render multiple copies of one object using unique transformation matrix for every copy.   Tutorial 05 - Texture Array This tutorial demonstrates how to combine instancing with texture arrays to use unique texture for every instance.   Tutorial 06 - Multithreading This tutorial shows how to generate command lists in parallel from multiple threads.   Tutorial 07 - Geometry Shader This tutorial shows how to use geometry shader to render smooth wireframe.   Tutorial 08 - Tessellation This tutorial shows how to use hardware tessellation to implement simple adaptive terrain rendering algorithm.   Tutorial_09 - Quads This tutorial shows how to render multiple 2D quads, frequently swithcing textures and blend modes.
      AntTweakBar sample demonstrates how to use AntTweakBar library to create simple user interface.

      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 textures, using compute shaders and unordered access views, etc. 

      The repository includes Asteroids performance benchmark based on this demo developed by Intel. It renders 50,000 unique textured asteroids and lets compare performance of D3D11 and D3D12 implementations. Every asteroid is a combination of one of 1000 unique meshes and one of 10 unique textures. 

      Integration with Unity
      Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity through Unity low-level native plugin interface. The engine relies on Native API Interoperability to attach to the graphics API initialized by Unity. After Diligent Engine device and context are created, they can be used us usual to create resources and issue rendering commands. GhostCubePlugin shows an example how Diligent Engine can be used to render a ghost cube only visible as a reflection in a mirror.

    • By Yxjmir
      I'm trying to load data from a .gltf file into a struct to use to load a .bin file. I don't think there is a problem with how the vertex positions are loaded, but with the indices. This is what I get when drawing with glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, ...):

      Also, using glDrawElements gives a similar result. Since it looks like its drawing triangles using the wrong vertices for each face, I'm assuming it needs an index buffer/element buffer. (I'm not sure why there is a line going through part of it, it doesn't look like it belongs to a side, re-exported it without texture coordinates checked, and its not there)
      I'm using jsoncpp to load the GLTF file, its format is based on JSON. Here is the gltf struct I'm using, and how I parse the file:
      #define GLTF_TARGET_ARRAY_BUFFER (34962) #define GLTF_TARGET_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER (34963) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_BYTE (5120) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_UNSIGNED_BYTE (5121) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_SHORT (5122) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_UNSIGNED_SHORT (5123) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_INT (5124) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_UNSIGNED_INT (5125) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_FLOAT (5126) #define GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_DOUBLE (5127) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_BYTE (5120) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_UNSIGNED_BYTE (5121) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_SHORT (5122) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_UNSIGNED_SHORT (5123) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_INT (5124) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_UNSIGNED_INT (5125) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_FLOAT (5126) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_FLOAT_VEC2 (35664) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_FLOAT_VEC3 (35665) #define GLTF_PARAMETER_TYPE_FLOAT_VEC4 (35666) struct GLTF { struct Accessor { USHORT bufferView; USHORT componentType; UINT count; vector<INT> max; vector<INT> min; string type; }; vector<Accessor> m_accessors; struct Asset { string copyright; string generator; string version; }m_asset; struct BufferView { UINT buffer; UINT byteLength; UINT byteOffset; UINT target; }; vector<BufferView> m_bufferViews; struct Buffer { UINT byteLength; string uri; }; vector<Buffer> m_buffers; vector<string> m_Images; struct Material { string name; string alphaMode; Vec4 baseColorFactor; UINT baseColorTexture; UINT normalTexture; float metallicFactor; }; vector<Material> m_materials; struct Meshes { string name; struct Primitive { vector<UINT> attributes_indices; UINT indices; UINT material; }; vector<Primitive> primitives; }; vector<Meshes> m_meshes; struct Nodes { int mesh; string name; Vec3 translation; }; vector<Nodes> m_nodes; struct Scenes { UINT index; string name; vector<UINT> nodes; }; vector<Scenes> m_scenes; vector<UINT> samplers; struct Textures { UINT sampler; UINT source; }; vector<Textures> m_textures; map<UINT, string> attributes_map; map<UINT, string> textures_map; }; GLTF m_gltf; // This is actually in the Mesh class bool Mesh::Load(string sFilename) { string sFileAsString; stringstream sStream; ifstream fin(sFilename); sStream << fin.rdbuf(); fin.close(); sFileAsString = sStream.str(); Json::Reader r; Json::Value root; if (!r.parse(sFileAsString, root)) { string errors = r.getFormatedErrorMessages(); if (errors != "") { // TODO: Log errors return false; } } if (root.isNull()) return false; Json::Value object; Json::Value value; // Load Accessors array, these are referenced by attributes with their index value object = root.get("accessors", Json::Value()); // store object with key "accessors", if not found it will default to Json::Value() if (!object.isNull()) { for (Json::ValueIterator it = object.begin(); it != object.end(); it++) { GLTF::Accessor accessor; value = (*it).get("bufferView", Json::Value()); if (!value.isNull()) accessor.bufferView = value.asUINT(); else return false; value = (*it).get("componentType", Json::Value()); if (!value.isNull()) accessor.componentType = value.asUINT(); else return false; value = (*it).get("count", Json::Value()); if (!value.isNull()) accessor.count = value.asUINT(); else return false; value = (*it).get("type", Json::Value()); if (!value.isNull()) accessor.type = value.asString(); else return false; m_gltf.accessors.push_back(accessor); } } else return false; object = root.get("bufferViews", Json::Value()); if(!object.isNull()) { for (Json::ValueIterator it = object.begin(); it != object.end(); it++) { GLTF::BufferView bufferView; value = (*it).get("buffer", Json::Value()); if(!value.isNull()) bufferView.buffer = value.asUInt(); else return false; value = (*it).get("byteLength", Json::Value()); if(!value.isNull()) bufferView.byteLength = value.asUInt(); else return false; value = (*it).get("byteOffset", Json::Value()); if(!value.isNull()) bufferView.byteOffset = value.asUInt(); else return false; value = (*it).get("target", Json::Value()); if(!value.isNull()) bufferView.target = value.asUInt(); else return false; m_gltf.m_bufferViews.push_back(bufferView); } } else return false; object = root.get("buffers", Json::Value()); if(!object.isNull()) { for (Json::ValueIterator it = object.begin(); it != object.end(); it++) { GLTF::Buffer buffer; value = (*it).get("byteLength", Json::Value()); if(!value.isNull()) buffer.byteLength = value.asUInt(); else return false; // Store the filename of the .bin file value = (*it).get("uri", Json::Value()); if(!value.isNull()) buffer.uri = value.asString(); else return false; } } else return false; object = root.get("meshes", Json::Value()); if(!object.isNull()) { for(Json::ValueIterator it = object.begin(); it != object.end(); it++) { GLTF::Meshes mesh; value = (*it).get("primitives", Json::Value()); for(Json::ValueIterator value_it = value.begin(); value_it != value.end(); value_it++) { GLTF::Meshes::Primitive primitive; Json::Value attributes; attributes = (*value_it).get("attributes", Json::Value()); vector<string> memberNames = attributes.getMemberNames(); for(size_t i = 0; i < memberNames.size(); i++) { Json::Value member; member = attributes.get(memeberNames[i], Json::Value()); if(!member.isNull()) { primitive.attributes_indices.push_back(member.asUInt()); m_gltf.attributes_map[member.asUInt()] = memberNames[i]; // Each of these referes to an accessor by indice, so each indice should be unique, and they are when loading a cube } else return false; } // Indice of the accessor used for indices Json::Value indices; indices = (*value_it).get("indices", Json::Value()); primitive.indices = indices.asUInt(); mesh.primitives.push_back(primitive); } m_gltf.m_meshes.push_back(mesh); } } vector<float> vertexData; vector<USHORT> indiceData; int vertexBufferSizeTotal = 0; int elementBufferSizeTotal = 0; GLTF::Meshes mesh = m_gltf.m_meshes[0]; vector<GLTF::Meshes::Primitive> primitives = mesh.primitives; // trying to make the code easier to read for (size_t p = 0; p < primitive.size(); p++) { vector<UINT> attributes = primitives[p].attributes_indices; for(size_t a = 0; a < attributes.size(); a++) { GLTF::Accessor accessor = m_gltf.m_accessors[attributes[a]]; GLTF::BufferView bufferView = m_gltf.m_bufferViews[accessor.bufferView]; UINT target = bufferView.target; if(target == GLTF_TARGET_ARRAY_BUFFER) vertexBufferSizeTotal += bufferView.byteLength; } UINT indice = primitives[p].indices; GLTF::BufferView bufferView = m_gltf.m_bufferViews[indice]; UINT target = bufferView.target; if(target == GLTF_TARGET_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER) elementBufferSizeTotal += bufferView.byteLength; } // These have already been generated glBindVertexArray(g_pGame->m_VAO); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, g_pGame->m_VBO); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vertexBufferSizeTotal, nullptr, GL_STATIC_DRAW); glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, g_pGame->m_EBO); glBufferData(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, elementBufferSizeTotal, nullptr, GL_STATIC_DRAW); int offset = 0; int offset_indice = 0; for (size_t p = 0; p < primitive.size(); p++) { vector<UINT> attributes = primitives[p].attributes_indices; int pos = sFilename.find_last_of('\\') + 1; string sFolder = sFilename.substr(0, pos); for (size_t a = 0; a < attributes.size(); a++) { LoadBufferView(sFolder, attributes[a], data, offset); } UINT indice = primitives[p].indices; GLTF::BufferView bufferView_indice = m_gltf.m_bufferViews[indice]; UINT target_indice = bufferView_indice.target; bool result = LoadBufferView(sFolder, indice, data, offset_indice); if(!result) return false; } return true; } bool Mesh::LoadBufferView(string sFolder, UINT a, vector<float> &vertexData, vector<float> &indiceData, int &offset_indice) { ifstream fin; GLTF::Accessor accessor = m_gltf.m_accessors[a]; GLTF::BufferView bufferView = m_gltf.m_bufferViews[accessor.bufferView]; GLTF::Buffer buffer = m_gltf.m_buffers[bufferView.buffer]; const size_t count = accessor.count; UINT target = bufferView.target; int elementSize; int componentSize; int numComponents; string sFilename_bin = sFolder + buffer.uri; fin.open(sFilename_bin, ios::binary); if (fin.fail()) { return false; } fin.seekg(bufferView.byteOffset, ios::beg); switch (accessor.componentType) { case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_BYTE: componentSize = sizeof(GLbyte); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_UNSIGNED_BYTE: componentSize = sizeof(GLubyte); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_SHORT: componentSize = sizeof(GLshort); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_UNSIGNED_SHORT: componentSize = sizeof(GLushort); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_INT: componentSize = sizeof(GLint); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_UNSIGNED_INT: componentSize = sizeof(GLuint); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_FLOAT: componentSize = sizeof(GLfloat); break; case GLTF_COMPONENT_TYPE_DOUBLE: componentSize = sizeof(GLfloat); break; default: componentSize = 0; break; } if (accessor.type == "SCALAR") numComponents = 1; else if (accessor.type == "VEC2") numComponents = 2; else if (accessor.type == "VEC3") numComponents = 3; else if (accessor.type == "VEC4") numComponents = 4; else if (accessor.type == "MAT2") numComponents = 4; else if (accessor.type == "MAT3") numComponents = 9; else if (accessor.type == "MAT4") numComponents = 16; else return false; vector<float> fSubdata; // I'm pretty sure this is one of the problems, or related to it. If I use vector<USHORT> only half of the vector if filled, if I use GLubyte, the entire vector is filled, but the data might not be right vector<GLubyte> nSubdata; elementSize = (componentSize) * (numComponents); // Only fill the vector I'm using if (accessor.type == "SCALAR") { nSubdata.resize(count * numComponents); fin.read(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&nSubdata[0]), count/* * elementSize*/); // I commented this out since I'm not sure which size the .bin is storing the indice values, and I kept getting runtime errors, no matter what type I used for nSubdata } else { fSubdata.resize(count * numComponents); fin.read(reinterpret_cast<char*>(&fSubdata[0]), count * elementSize); } switch (target) { case GLTF_TARGET_ARRAY_BUFFER: { vertexData.insert(vertexData.end(), fSubdata.begin(), fSubdata.end()); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, g_pGame->m_VBO); glBufferSubData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, offset, fSubdata.size() * componentSize, &fSubdata[0]); int attribute_index = 0; // I'm only loading vertex positions, the only attribute stored in the files for now glEnableVertexAttribArray(attribute_index); glVertexAttribPointer(0, numComponents, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, componentSize * numComponents, (void*)(offset)); }break; case GLTF_TARGET_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER: { indiceData.insert(indiceData.end(), nSubdata.begin(), nSubdata.end()); glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, g_pGame->m_EBO); // This is another area where I'm not sure of the correct values, but if componentSize is the correct size for the type being used it should be correct glBufferSubData is expecting the size in bytes, right? glBufferSubData(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, offset, nSubdata.size() * componentSize, &nSubdata[0]); }break; default: return false; } if (accessor.type == "SCALAR") offset += nSubdata.size() * componentSize; else offset += fSubdata.size() * componentSize; fin.close(); return true; } these are the draw calls, I only use one at a time, but neither is currently display properly, g_pGame->m_indices is the same as indiceData vector, and vertexCount contains the correct vertex count, but I forgot to copy the lines of code containing where I set them, which is at the end of Mesh::Load(), I double checked the values to make sure.
      glDrawElements(GL_LINES, g_pGame->m_indices.size(), GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, (void*)0); // Only shows with GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE
      glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, 0, g_pGame->m_vertexCount);
      So, I'm asking what type should I use for the indices? it doesn't seem to be unsigned short, which is what I selected with the Khronos Group Exporter for blender. Also, am I reading part or all of the .bin file wrong?
    • By ritzmax72
      That means how do I use base DirectX or OpenGL api's to make a physics based destruction simulation? 
      Will it be just smart rendering or something else is required?
  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

OpenGL OpenGL to lose the battle against direct 10

This topic is 4551 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

I personally prefer OpenGL over Direct3d. One of the biggest benefits of OpenGL is that it is open sourced where DirectX is commercial. Both are consided required for serious graphic programmer but it seems to me that OpenGL is losing favor with developers. In the past(DirectX 5 era) OpenGL was considered more powerful that DirectX however it seems that alot of developers think that this isn't the case. I have read alot of postings that state that OpenGL will lose it's current support from graphics and game developers when DirectX 10 comes. I personnally refuse to think that OpenGL will lose over Direct even if there are more books and more people that support it OpenGL will always be open source.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
opengl is a specification, i think

AFAIK, opengl isnt "open source". however, i believe there are open source implementations of it, but the one im thinking of (mesa?) is a software renderer.

however, i generally found it easy to learn opengl, where as the insane amount of setting up and handles that need to be learned put my off directx.

the major benefit of opengl is that it is cross platform, asar as im concerned.

the other issue is directx is a graphics/network/input/otherstuff api, while opengl is a grahpics api.

they aren't directly comparable.

but SDL/openGL i find easier on the head. my 2 cents

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will surely not "abandon" OpenGL to use Direct3D 10, since OpenGL is the only alternative (more or less) for multi-platform programming. And I'm pretty sure most game developers will keep supporting OpenGL.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think OpenGL still has a lot of life in it. For purely Windows-based games, you'll likely see a big shift to DirectX 10 simply due to the native support in Windows Vista and (at least from Microsoft) a lack of support for OpenGL.

Of course, that won't have a huge impact (MS not supporting OpenGL) because ATI/NVIDIA will (likely) continue to support it, thus users will have the necessary support available. As well, developers could always distribute the necessary support with their game (in the same way they do DX right now).

And don't forget, the PlayStation3 is based on OpenGL (or, rather, OpenGLES, or what they call PSGL). So game developers will certainly not be leaving OpenGL anytime soon. If anything, you'll likely see a resurgence in OpenGL now that a very close cousin/stepbrother is on the PS3.

That being said, I personally like DirectX *overall* in comparison to OpenGL, primarily due to the incredible amount of support provided by Microsoft. Purely at the API level, though, OpenGL is often "quicker" to get going and experiment with. As a result, most throw-away temporary renderers I've seen are implemented in OpenGL.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
In any well designed engine, toggling between D3D and OGL (at least right now) is a trivial proposition. Sure it might require some QA, but the basic port is quick.

Now, with D3D 10, OpenGL/ARB will have to tack on some kludges...excuse me, approve some extensions quickly in order to come up to snuff, or they will have serious problems. OpenGL is no longer driving innovation, as it was for several years. They're playing a pure catch-up game now, and if they mess it up, they'll be relegated to the sidelines (i.e. alternate OSes).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
All things considered, OpenGL already is "relegated to the sidelines." There's no real compelling reason to use OGL if all your developing for is Windows, and since that's 99%-ish of the PC game market very few developers are going to do ports anyways. For someone in it purely for commerical reasons, DirectX is definately more attractive.

That said, like Promit mentioned: What API an engine runs on is pretty insignificant anymore. A well designed engine should be able to port from one to the other in a negligable amount of time. The days are gone where an engine would be pitched as "DirectX based" or "OpenGL based". It's all about the feature set and the tools now.

OpenGL is never going to "die": there are too many modeling apps and the like that use it, and too many older games that need it. The card manufacturers will continue to support it, regaurdless of how badly MS neglects it, and it will continue to be used for ports and various consoles. By and large, though, DirectX is the standard now, and that's the way it looks to stay for a long time.

(Note: I develop primarily using OpenGL, so don't take me to be a DirectX fanboy or anything. I'm just stating the facts.)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the "OpenGL is going to diieee!!!11" post of the week. It was already overdue.


Anyway. Will OpenGL lose the "battle" against DX10 ? Nope, it won't. Let's look at some facts, shall we ? First, an API doesn't "drive innovation" anymore, these times are long over. The hardware vendors drive innovation, no, they push it at all price. Both major APIs just try to keep up with it.

And MS has an impressive track record of completely failing at this "catch the new GPU feature" game. The DX9 instancing fiasco is a perfect example where hardware vendors started rebelling against MS's API policies, by even technically circumventing it. MS learned their lesson (well, partially at least), and made DX10 broader in feature context than what has been done before.

OpenGL doesn't work this way, because it uses a different release model. OpenGL evolves continously, while D3D does it in jumps. It has always been the same: DX is a step ahead of OpenGL when a new version is released. Then after some time both are on par again. And finally, OpenGL gets the lead because new GPU features get released as GL extensions. Repeat the cycle for the next version.

So yeah, DX10 has features current OpenGL implementations don't have. So what ? OpenGL will get them as soon as the demand is there. And just wait until GPUs have surpassed DX10 features. Then OGL will lead again, until DX11. And so on. It's just the way both update models work.


There's no real compelling reason to use OGL if all your developing for is Windows,

And there is no real compelling reason not to use it.


and since that's 99%-ish of the PC game market very few developers are going to do ports anyways. For someone in it purely for commerical reasons, DirectX is definately more attractive.

How so ?

In fact, it's more a question about the graphics framework game companies license from third parties. Most companies won't give a shit about whether the engine they buy is D3D or OGL, as long as it's cutting edge and not too expensive. The reason why currently more 3D engines in the game sector use D3D is historical (well, around 2, 3 years ago). Theoretically, this could change again at any time.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some misunderstanding people got from my original post, and it's entirely my fault for just putting in another attention getting & poorly written OpenGL post. Here is one post by the mod Yann L that shows how I screwed up my argument for OpenGL losing popularity.


Ah, teh "OpenGL is going to diieee!!!11" post of the week. It was already overdue.


Well I never did say that OpenGL was going to "diieeee!!11" what I was trying to get at is how alot of developers are using Direct3d where openGL would work better. Take Carmack for instance he was a long term OpenGL guy and on the latest Doom installment he worked with DirectX 8 stating that DX8 at the time had the best pixel shader support and the best vertex shader support.

Perhaps I am just overeacting to Microsoft's success with Direct. But I wish that more individuals would avoid DirectX just because Microsoft is a 10 ton corperation with a "mostly" bad rep.

Also on a side note I also f**ked up by stating that OpenGL is open source, Opengl by itself isn't, I should have said it is the current industry standard. I was actually thinking about mesa which is an open source implementation of the OpenGL. I also forgot to state that opengl is cross-platform and that too many computer users are trapped in to using windows when they have other options. BTW sorry about my piss poor writtening style and all my english errors.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Original post by Hodge
Some misunderstanding people got from my original post, and it's entirely my fault for just putting in another attention getting & poorly written OpenGL post. Here is one post by the mod Yann L that shows how I screwed up my argument for OpenGL losing popularity.

I wasn't specifically referring to your post. This is yet another standard D3D versus OGL thread. Whatever the exact way of starting it might be, it will always end in the same way, trust me on that. People always use the same fallacious arguments, ignore facts, and twist reality to fit with whatever API they might prefer. Again, this is not targeted at you in particular, it's just a typical property of such threads: objectivity dies first.


Well I never did say that OpenGL was going to "diieeee!!11" what I was trying to get at is how alot of developers are using Direct3d where openGL would work better. Take Carmack for instance he was a long term OpenGL guy and on the latest Doom installment he worked with DirectX 8 stating that DX8 at the time had the best pixel shader support and the best vertex shader support.

Doom 3 uses OpenGL, except for the XBox version (obviously).


Perhaps I am just overeacting to Microsoft's success with Direct. But I wish that more individuals would avoid DirectX just because Microsoft is a 10 ton corperation with a "mostly" bad rep.

And that is supposed to be a valid reason to avoid it ? Select an API based on objective technical assessments. Select it based on your personal preference for its semantics. Select it based on driver, OS or platform support. But avoiding an API because it is done by "the big evil M$" is just stupid. No offense intended, but I smell zealotry from miles around.


I also forgot to state that opengl is cross-platform and that too many computer users are trapped in to using windows when they have other options.

Windows is the industry standard on consumer level platforms right now. Deal with it. As an indie developer, you have the choice: use Windows or Linux, use D3D or OGL. Use what you prefer, or what might be better suited to your particular needs. Choice is always good.

But if you are a large scale game development studio, your priority is not to bring down Windows or D3D and introduce the next OS revolution. Your priority is to get the game done on schedule, to reduce costs, and to make shareholders and/or publishers happy. What API is used to do that is completely irrelevant. More often than not, the techies (who might be able to judge the pros and contras of an API) are not even involved in the selection process. The purchasing and finance department will choose whatever engine seems to be most suited in terms of minimizing investment and a fast ROI.

In the industry, there are no OGL versus D3D arguments. The question doesn't even exist. It's all about the bottom line. Create a groundbreaking new OpenGL based 3D engine that sells cheaper than existing engines, and suddendly everybody will use OpenGL. Do the same with D3D, and the balance tips into the other direction again. Right now, it's the latter. Tomorrow, everything can change again.

Share this post

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

  • Advertisement