• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
_the_phantom_

OpenGL
OpenGL3.0.. I mean 2.2

337 posts in this topic

Well, someone has linked to the following on OpenGL.org; http://opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec30.20080811.pdf And, well, thanks but no thanks. All those glorious changes? Gone. The rewritten API? Gone. What we are left with is OpenGL2.2. To quote Eddy Luten from the Opengl.org forum;
Quote:
For those who don't feel like digging through the spec, OpenGL 3.0 Equals:
  • API support for the new texture lookup, texture format, and integer and unsigned integer capabilities of the OpenGL Shading Language 1.30 specification (GL EXT gpu shader4).
  • Conditional rendering (GL NV conditional render).
  • Fine control over mapping buffer subranges into client space and flushing modified data.
  • Floating-point color and depth internal formats for textures and renderbuffers (GL ARB color buffer float, GL NV depth buffer float, 455 N.2. DEPRECATION MODEL 456 GL ARB texture float, GL EXT packed float, and GL EXT texture shared exponent).
  • Framebuffer objects (GL EXT framebuffer object).
  • Half-float (16-bit) vertex array and pixel data formats (GL NV half float and GL ARB half float pixel).
  • Multisample stretch blit functionality (GL EXT framebuffer multisample and GL EXT framebuffer blit).
  • Non-normalized integer color internal formats for textures and renderbuffers (GL EXT texture integer).
  • One- and two-dimensional layered texture targets (GL EXT texture array).
  • Packed depth/stencil internal formats for combined depth+stencil textures and renderbuffers (GL EXT packed depth stencil).
  • Per-color-attachment blend enables and color writemasks (GL EXT draw buffers2).
  • RGTC specific internal compressed formats (GL EXT texture compression rgtc).
  • Single- and double-channel (R and RG) internal formats for textures and renderbuffers.
  • Transform feedback (GL EXT transform feedback).
  • Vertex array objects (GL APPLE vertex array object).
  • sRGB framebuffer mode (GL EXT framebuffer sRGB) Plus deprecation of older features.
As he said, where the hell are the objects? Frankly, this is crap. I said it was a sink or swim moment for the ARB and it's just sunk without a trace. It appears the reason is they don't want to break the API because of all the CAD apps out there (J. Carmack, QuakeCon2008), and in doing so have finally put the nail into the coffin games wise. I'd like to congratulate MS for winning the 3D API 'war' on Windows, turns out they didn't need to sink the goodship OpenGL, the captains ran it into an iceberg for them.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhm..I was looking forward to new API. Anyway, I'm just happy with D3D. Seems like Microsoft actually know how to do the things.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doh! Why don't they let the CAD people stick with 2.1, and move forwards with 3?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My God. What would have been the problem saying, "This is the way it's going to be, let's REFINE it"? Makes me loose a LOT of respect for the ARB.

Of course, being on Linux, I sort of have to go with OpenGL (mesa, whatever) instead of DirectX. After this little blow though, I'm looking forward to somebody cracking DirectX.

FlyingIsFun1217
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let me get this straight... In order to allow what, a small handful of old CAD apps to compile against 3.0, they're willing to practically kill off all *new* applications developed against the API?

That makes sense. One customer a year ago is better than ten next week... [grin]

Or maybe they've just realized that a) they've lost everything on Windows to DirectX so it doesn't really matter what they do there, and b) since they don't have a single competing API on other platforms, they don't actually need to make an effort there either.

End result, they can screw over developers as much as they like, and it won't actually hurt them. Windows developers wouldn't have used OGL in the first place, and everyone else will keep using them because there are no alternatives.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Spoonbender
That makes sense. One customer a year ago is better than ten next week... [grin]


Yes, apprently the ARB has a passing familarity with 'sense'; I'm starting to suspect that as a rule of thumb they find out what makes sense and then go in the other direction...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it took them a year of no updates, no news to unroll their existing changes and go back to an unassuming, useless API?

I thought Khronos was on the clue train here. People bank their livelihoods on this stuff.

Maybe with the new depreciation model we can have objects by 2014. I suspect I'd better get cracking on my Core Animation/DirectX interop layer before Apple leaves the ARB.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't help but laugh a little bit at the irony-- the ARB gets nailed for NOT dropping some support for older apps, but when Microsoft does the right thing and pushes forward with DX10-- they take a lot of flak themselves. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. That's life, I guess.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad sad, I always loved opengl, having started with it. And I like it for being open and all. But they really lost focus completely. What's wrong with drawing a line and put a complete new api for the next version? Dx does it (too often possibly). It's not like it hurts anyone to have opengl1.dll, opengl2.dll and opengl3.dll on it's system.

Bad bad bad direction.

we should create a new one :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Mike.Popoloski
So I just checked, and it turns out we have plenty of room in DirectX and XNA for you guys. You can all come, nobody needs to get left out. Jack is going to make a batch of cookies for everyone!

I'm totally taking you up on that. I just started C# and XNA (I've been doing C++ and OpenGL in the past) and I'm really enjoying it. Will they be chocolate chip cookies? Those are my favorite.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Spoonbender
So let me get this straight... In order to allow what, a small handful of old CAD apps to compile against 3.0, they're willing to practically kill off all *new* applications developed against the API?

It's not the number of apps that matter; it's the size of the market that these apps cater to. What would you estimate is the annual revenue from this "small handful of old CAD apps" (like AutoCAD 2009, released way back in the dark days of March 2008)? This was a US$ 1 billion market in 1979; in 1997, PDM - just one facet of the PLM approach generally employed by modern CAD solutions - was a $1.1 billion market by itself.

I understand the game developer's frustration - I was just about to start learning OpenGL for the Mac, and I still will - but let's not get ridiculous. CAD is a huge industry: every architecture firm, every electrical firm, every large-scale manufacturer, the automotive industry, product design, industrial design... They are a major client of OpenGL, and their perspective is an important one.

Nor can you argue that they could just continue working against 2.1 while the rest of the world moved on to 3.0. CAD applications develop and compete aggressively, as aggressively as games albeit with a different visual emphasis, and they need to take advantage of technology advances just like everyone else.


No question, this is a disappointment, but it doesn't appear to be so much a case of deliberately "screwing developers over" as it is a case of incompetence and lack of strong vision to plot a future. I mean, I'm only a casual OpenGL observer, but that seems to have been the case ever since the Khronos Group became responsible.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The usual will happen. GL drivers are going to get more and more complicated to write -> ATI will lag behind so don't expect GL 3.0 drivers anytime soon, Intel won't release a driver at all and neither will SIS and I don't know who else is making chipsets.

I can see they have "The Deprecation Model" on page 403 but so what??? They are going to make a clean break some day?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
No question, this is a disappointment, but it doesn't appear to be so much a case of deliberately "screwing developers over" as it is a case of incompetence and lack of strong vision to plot a future.
But it's more than just that. Forget the justification for why things ended up the way they did finally. My question is, why was everyone in the graphics world strung along for so many years? Why did the ARB and then Khronos promise pie in the sky goals and then vanish off for a year, promising big news, just to give us this? If that was how any of us behaved at our jobs, we'd be fired.

Regardless of where OpenGL goes from here (which is apparently nowhere), there's no reason to ever trust the people behind it again. This is the second time they've misled us thanks to their incompetent bickering.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... They took so much time (and delayed the launch) just for THIS???

I have a great idea!!! Next OpenGL 4.0 will be an object-oriented API that will actually wrap to Direct3D [lol][lol]

(oh... and if that doesn't work will just stick with OGL 2.3 and name it 4.0)

Seriously, If things keep going this way, we should make up a team that will be in charge of a new cross-plattform API. Not easy to do, as that would need support from Driver developers (aka NVIDIA, ATI, Intel); plus we need experienced people, and a lot of time to just design (not to mention coding). After that, it should have success into adoption.
But at least we could try.

Well.... [sigh]

Dark Sylinc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Mike.Popoloski
So I just checked, and it turns out we have plenty of room in DirectX and XNA for you guys. You can all come, nobody needs to get left out. Jack is going to make a batch of cookies for everyone!

Yep, I'm also considering coming back to DirectX. Shame on Khronos for making us rely on M$ [crying]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TBH I take this as a message from the hardware vendors saying "Nobody except hobbyists are interested in cutting edge cross-platform graphics - OpenGLES is fine for everyone else. Use the well supported windows API you fools!"

Which, to be fair, people have been telling us for years.

It's not that bad though, nothing has been lost. It's just a shame the ARB managed expectations of their work so poorly.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't want to be the odd one in the bunch and I'm all for bashing OpenGL but what exactly is the problem? Has it lost hardware features? Does it run slower? Is it less compatible? I'm a noob with OpenGL I just started like 2 weeks ago and I can't understand why all of you are complaining?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenGL hasn't been cutting edge since before DX8 came out. Now they are just cross platform and playing catch up. They had one foot in the grave when D3D8 came out, and then Ms left the ARB and released D3D9 and they were officially dead in the water.

OpenGL became redundant for a few reasons.

- They keep adding messy extensions onto an old, outdated base API. D3D is like a sports car, and OpenGL is like a scooter that keeps getting side cars attached to it.

- The company that has the most installed graphics chips on home machines has the crappiest drivers. It really sucks to write perfectly legal code and have the horrible intel implementation completely botch your whole program. Even worse when one of the driver versions reported supporting OpenGL 1.2 but didn't actually support most 1.2 extensions.

Have you ever hung out on the user forums for 3D software written in OpenGL? Every time the program gets patched there is a flood of intel users reporting that the program is broken or crashes with strange errors, and the devs have to write workarounds for everything they added.

What good is a standard when no one follows it? Especially when the company that has the biggest share of the GPU market doesn't have a working implementation on most of their models of GPU and has no intention of fixing it. People think it's all about ATI and nVidia, when they are really only competing for second and third place.

When I wanted to write a polished game and publish it, I gave up on OpenGL because of all those problems. All my target audience was going to have those GPUs. I can't be dealing with all that crap. I want to write something that just works. Instead of being creative, I had to look over my code and keep blindly recompiling to try and prevent my friend's intel gpu from rendering my game with a wireframe overlay, and random faces being culled, when I had no calls for wireframe drawing mode in my whole app, and culling disabled. [lol]

The ARB just takes years to try and agree on a header file, and they have to make everyone happy and cater to every possible interest at the same time. And then, they just give us that header and they leave it at that. Everyone else has to do all the work. Even to the point where a member of this forum has to write a library to easily access the extensions. Why couldn't the ARB get off their asses and make their own GLEE like header for everyone to use??

---

I think it's time to let this horse die and let another company step forward and create a cross platform 3D games API. Why hasn't apple been spending money to develop their own DirectX like technology? Maybe even license Direct3D?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.0 could be looked at as the last fully upward compatible revision of OpenGL; since it introduces a deprecation model allowing for the phased elimination of obsolete API's (a set of which are already defined in the spec). The intent there is to provide for an orderly simplification of the specification and drivers for upcoming releases, the next of which is scheduled for less than 12 months from now.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/khronos-releases-opengl-30-specifications/story.aspx?guid=%7BC2A3B5D7-CB9A-4898-BAF9-178DD8CFD695%7D&dist=hppr

BTW we have set up a mail reflector specifically for questions and suggestions specifically relating to game development using OpenGL 3.0 - if there is some piece of hardware functionality not addressed by the current 3.0 spec, now is exactly the right time to let us hear about it.

gamedev@khronos.org

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by EmptyVoid
Didn't want to be the odd one in the bunch and I'm all for bashing OpenGL but what exactly is the problem? Has it lost hardware features? Does it run slower? Is it less compatible? I'm a noob with OpenGL I just started like 2 weeks ago and I can't understand why all of you are complaining?


Because this ISNT what was talked about a year ago when they were 'close' to having a spec.

The point of OpenGL3.0, as originally talked about, was to;
- make the 'fast path' easy to find
- make the life of driver developers easier
- change the API to better reflect the hardware

The OpenGL API is.. well, probably over 15 years old by now, if not a little bit more, and while it matched the hardware for a while it is now drifting from it (see D3D10 for a better idea of how to talk to the hardware) and the point of the breaking refresh was to better match that hardware.

However, by simply bolting things onto the OpenGL2.1 spec they have;
- failed to make the fast path easy to find
- failed to make the driver developers lives easier
- failed to change the API to better reflect the hardware

Same old, same old really... on reflection it was dumb of us to give them another chance to 'fix' the problem.. as they say; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I won't be fooled again.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
I mean, I'm only a casual OpenGL observer, but that seems to have been the case ever since the Khronos Group became responsible.


It's been the case since long before then, we had hoped that being part of Khronos would help... apprently not.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by phantom

- failed to make the fast path easy to find
- failed to make the driver developers lives easier
- failed to change the API to better reflect the hardware



Sorry for asking again... but how u come to a conclusion that openGL failed on these three above? I am a little confuzed..

Thanks again!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Similar Content

    • By Solid_Spy
      Hello, I have been working on SH Irradiance map rendering, and I have been using a GLSL pixel shader to render SH irradiance to 2D irradiance maps for my static objects. I already have it working with 9 3D textures so far for the first 9 SH functions.
      In my GLSL shader, I have to send in 9 SH Coefficient 3D Texures that use RGBA8 as a pixel format. RGB being used for the coefficients for red, green, and blue, and the A for checking if the voxel is in use (for the 3D texture solidification shader to prevent bleeding).
      My problem is, I want to knock this number of textures down to something like 4 or 5. Getting even lower would be a godsend. This is because I eventually plan on adding more SH Coefficient 3D Textures for other parts of the game map (such as inside rooms, as opposed to the outside), to circumvent irradiance probe bleeding between rooms separated by walls. I don't want to reach the 32 texture limit too soon. Also, I figure that it would be a LOT faster.
      Is there a way I could, say, store 2 sets of SH Coefficients for 2 SH functions inside a texture with RGBA16 pixels? If so, how would I extract them from inside GLSL? Let me know if you have any suggestions ^^.
    • By DaniDesu
      #include "MyEngine.h" int main() { MyEngine myEngine; myEngine.run(); return 0; } MyEngine.h
      #pragma once #include "MyWindow.h" #include "MyShaders.h" #include "MyShapes.h" class MyEngine { private: GLFWwindow * myWindowHandle; MyWindow * myWindow; public: MyEngine(); ~MyEngine(); void run(); }; MyEngine.cpp
      #include "MyEngine.h" MyEngine::MyEngine() { MyWindow myWindow(800, 600, "My Game Engine"); this->myWindow = &myWindow; myWindow.createWindow(); this->myWindowHandle = myWindow.getWindowHandle(); // Load all OpenGL function pointers for use gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress); } MyEngine::~MyEngine() { this->myWindow->destroyWindow(); } void MyEngine::run() { MyShaders myShaders("VertexShader.glsl", "FragmentShader.glsl"); MyShapes myShapes; GLuint vertexArrayObjectHandle; float coordinates[] = { 0.5f, 0.5f, 0.0f, 0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, -0.5f, 0.5f, 0.0f }; vertexArrayObjectHandle = myShapes.drawTriangle(coordinates); while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(this->myWindowHandle)) { glClearColor(0.5f, 0.5f, 0.5f, 1.0f); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); // Draw something glUseProgram(myShaders.getShaderProgram()); glBindVertexArray(vertexArrayObjectHandle); glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3); glfwSwapBuffers(this->myWindowHandle); glfwPollEvents(); } } MyShaders.h
      #pragma once #include <glad\glad.h> #include <GLFW\glfw3.h> #include "MyFileHandler.h" class MyShaders { private: const char * vertexShaderFileName; const char * fragmentShaderFileName; const char * vertexShaderCode; const char * fragmentShaderCode; GLuint vertexShaderHandle; GLuint fragmentShaderHandle; GLuint shaderProgram; void compileShaders(); public: MyShaders(const char * vertexShaderFileName, const char * fragmentShaderFileName); ~MyShaders(); GLuint getShaderProgram(); const char * getVertexShaderCode(); const char * getFragmentShaderCode(); }; MyShaders.cpp
      #include "MyShaders.h" MyShaders::MyShaders(const char * vertexShaderFileName, const char * fragmentShaderFileName) { this->vertexShaderFileName = vertexShaderFileName; this->fragmentShaderFileName = fragmentShaderFileName; // Load shaders from files MyFileHandler myVertexShaderFileHandler(this->vertexShaderFileName); this->vertexShaderCode = myVertexShaderFileHandler.readFile(); MyFileHandler myFragmentShaderFileHandler(this->fragmentShaderFileName); this->fragmentShaderCode = myFragmentShaderFileHandler.readFile(); // Compile shaders this->compileShaders(); } MyShaders::~MyShaders() { } void MyShaders::compileShaders() { this->vertexShaderHandle = glCreateShader(GL_VERTEX_SHADER); this->fragmentShaderHandle = glCreateShader(GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER); glShaderSource(this->vertexShaderHandle, 1, &(this->vertexShaderCode), NULL); glShaderSource(this->fragmentShaderHandle, 1, &(this->fragmentShaderCode), NULL); glCompileShader(this->vertexShaderHandle); glCompileShader(this->fragmentShaderHandle); this->shaderProgram = glCreateProgram(); glAttachShader(this->shaderProgram, this->vertexShaderHandle); glAttachShader(this->shaderProgram, this->fragmentShaderHandle); glLinkProgram(this->shaderProgram); return; } GLuint MyShaders::getShaderProgram() { return this->shaderProgram; } const char * MyShaders::getVertexShaderCode() { return this->vertexShaderCode; } const char * MyShaders::getFragmentShaderCode() { return this->fragmentShaderCode; } MyWindow.h
      #pragma once #include <glad\glad.h> #include <GLFW\glfw3.h> class MyWindow { private: GLFWwindow * windowHandle; int windowWidth; int windowHeight; const char * windowTitle; public: MyWindow(int windowWidth, int windowHeight, const char * windowTitle); ~MyWindow(); GLFWwindow * getWindowHandle(); void createWindow(); void MyWindow::destroyWindow(); }; MyWindow.cpp
      #include "MyWindow.h" MyWindow::MyWindow(int windowWidth, int windowHeight, const char * windowTitle) { this->windowHandle = NULL; this->windowWidth = windowWidth; this->windowWidth = windowWidth; this->windowHeight = windowHeight; this->windowTitle = windowTitle; glfwInit(); } MyWindow::~MyWindow() { } GLFWwindow * MyWindow::getWindowHandle() { return this->windowHandle; } void MyWindow::createWindow() { // Use OpenGL 3.3 and GLSL 3.3 glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MINOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MAJOR, 3); // Limit backwards compatibility glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_PROFILE, GLFW_OPENGL_CORE_PROFILE); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_FORWARD_COMPAT, GL_TRUE); // Prevent resizing window glfwWindowHint(GLFW_RESIZABLE, GL_FALSE); // Create window this->windowHandle = glfwCreateWindow(this->windowWidth, this->windowHeight, this->windowTitle, NULL, NULL); glfwMakeContextCurrent(this->windowHandle); } void MyWindow::destroyWindow() { glfwTerminate(); } MyShapes.h
      #pragma once #include <glad\glad.h> #include <GLFW\glfw3.h> class MyShapes { public: MyShapes(); ~MyShapes(); GLuint & drawTriangle(float coordinates[]); }; MyShapes.cpp
      #include "MyShapes.h" MyShapes::MyShapes() { } MyShapes::~MyShapes() { } GLuint & MyShapes::drawTriangle(float coordinates[]) { GLuint vertexBufferObject{}; GLuint vertexArrayObject{}; // Create a VAO glGenVertexArrays(1, &vertexArrayObject); glBindVertexArray(vertexArrayObject); // Send vertices to the GPU glGenBuffers(1, &vertexBufferObject); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vertexBufferObject); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(coordinates), coordinates, GL_STATIC_DRAW); // Dertermine the interpretation of the array buffer glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 3*sizeof(float), (void *)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); // Unbind the buffers glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0); glBindVertexArray(0); return vertexArrayObject; } MyFileHandler.h
      #pragma once #include <cstdio> #include <cstdlib> class MyFileHandler { private: const char * fileName; unsigned long fileSize; void setFileSize(); public: MyFileHandler(const char * fileName); ~MyFileHandler(); unsigned long getFileSize(); const char * readFile(); }; MyFileHandler.cpp
      #include "MyFileHandler.h" MyFileHandler::MyFileHandler(const char * fileName) { this->fileName = fileName; this->setFileSize(); } MyFileHandler::~MyFileHandler() { } void MyFileHandler::setFileSize() { FILE * fileHandle = NULL; fopen_s(&fileHandle, this->fileName, "rb"); fseek(fileHandle, 0L, SEEK_END); this->fileSize = ftell(fileHandle); rewind(fileHandle); fclose(fileHandle); return; } unsigned long MyFileHandler::getFileSize() { return (this->fileSize); } const char * MyFileHandler::readFile() { char * buffer = (char *)malloc((this->fileSize)+1); FILE * fileHandle = NULL; fopen_s(&fileHandle, this->fileName, "rb"); fread(buffer, this->fileSize, sizeof(char), fileHandle); fclose(fileHandle); buffer[this->fileSize] = '\0'; return buffer; } VertexShader.glsl
      #version 330 core layout (location = 0) vec3 VertexPositions; void main() { gl_Position = vec4(VertexPositions, 1.0f); } FragmentShader.glsl
      #version 330 core out vec4 FragmentColor; void main() { FragmentColor = vec4(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); } I am attempting to create a simple engine/graphics utility using some object-oriented paradigms. My first goal is to get some output from my engine, namely, a simple red triangle.
      For this goal, the MyShapes class will be responsible for defining shapes such as triangles, polygons etc. Currently, there is only a drawTriangle() method implemented, because I first wanted to see whether it works or not before attempting to code other shape drawing methods.
      The constructor of the MyEngine class creates a GLFW window (GLAD is also initialized here to load all OpenGL functionality), and the myEngine.run() method in Main.cpp is responsible for firing up the engine. In this run() method, the shaders get loaded from files via the help of my FileHandler class. The vertices for the triangle are processed by the myShapes.drawTriangle() method where a vertex array object, a vertex buffer object and vertrex attributes are set for this purpose.
      The while loop in the run() method should be outputting me the desired red triangle, but all I get is a grey window area. Why?
      Note: The shaders are compiling and linking without any errors.
      (Note: I am aware that this code is not using any good software engineering practices (e.g. exceptions, error handling). I am planning to implement them later, once I get the hang of OpenGL.)

       
    • By KarimIO
      EDIT: I thought this was restricted to Attribute-Created GL contexts, but it isn't, so I rewrote the post.
      Hey guys, whenever I call SwapBuffers(hDC), I get a crash, and I get a "Too many posts were made to a semaphore." from Windows as I call SwapBuffers. What could be the cause of this?
      Update: No crash occurs if I don't draw, just clear and swap.
      static PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR pfd = // pfd Tells Windows How We Want Things To Be { sizeof(PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR), // Size Of This Pixel Format Descriptor 1, // Version Number PFD_DRAW_TO_WINDOW | // Format Must Support Window PFD_SUPPORT_OPENGL | // Format Must Support OpenGL PFD_DOUBLEBUFFER, // Must Support Double Buffering PFD_TYPE_RGBA, // Request An RGBA Format 32, // Select Our Color Depth 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // Color Bits Ignored 0, // No Alpha Buffer 0, // Shift Bit Ignored 0, // No Accumulation Buffer 0, 0, 0, 0, // Accumulation Bits Ignored 24, // 24Bit Z-Buffer (Depth Buffer) 0, // No Stencil Buffer 0, // No Auxiliary Buffer PFD_MAIN_PLANE, // Main Drawing Layer 0, // Reserved 0, 0, 0 // Layer Masks Ignored }; if (!(hDC = GetDC(windowHandle))) return false; unsigned int PixelFormat; if (!(PixelFormat = ChoosePixelFormat(hDC, &pfd))) return false; if (!SetPixelFormat(hDC, PixelFormat, &pfd)) return false; hRC = wglCreateContext(hDC); if (!hRC) { std::cout << "wglCreateContext Failed!\n"; return false; } if (wglMakeCurrent(hDC, hRC) == NULL) { std::cout << "Make Context Current Second Failed!\n"; return false; } ... // OGL Buffer Initialization glClear(GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT | GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); glBindVertexArray(vao); glUseProgram(myprogram); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, indexCount, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, (void *)indexStart); SwapBuffers(GetDC(window_handle));  
    • By Tchom
      Hey devs!
       
      I've been working on a OpenGL ES 2.0 android engine and I have begun implementing some simple (point) lighting. I had something fairly simple working, so I tried to get fancy and added color-tinting light. And it works great... with only one or two lights. Any more than that, the application drops about 15 frames per light added (my ideal is at least 4 or 5). I know implementing lighting is expensive, I just didn't think it was that expensive. I'm fairly new to the world of OpenGL and GLSL, so there is a good chance I've written some crappy shader code. If anyone had any feedback or tips on how I can optimize this code, please let me know.
       
      Vertex Shader
      uniform mat4 u_MVPMatrix; uniform mat4 u_MVMatrix; attribute vec4 a_Position; attribute vec3 a_Normal; attribute vec2 a_TexCoordinate; varying vec3 v_Position; varying vec3 v_Normal; varying vec2 v_TexCoordinate; void main() { v_Position = vec3(u_MVMatrix * a_Position); v_TexCoordinate = a_TexCoordinate; v_Normal = vec3(u_MVMatrix * vec4(a_Normal, 0.0)); gl_Position = u_MVPMatrix * a_Position; } Fragment Shader
      precision mediump float; uniform vec4 u_LightPos["+numLights+"]; uniform vec4 u_LightColours["+numLights+"]; uniform float u_LightPower["+numLights+"]; uniform sampler2D u_Texture; varying vec3 v_Position; varying vec3 v_Normal; varying vec2 v_TexCoordinate; void main() { gl_FragColor = (texture2D(u_Texture, v_TexCoordinate)); float diffuse = 0.0; vec4 colourSum = vec4(1.0); for (int i = 0; i < "+numLights+"; i++) { vec3 toPointLight = vec3(u_LightPos[i]); float distance = length(toPointLight - v_Position); vec3 lightVector = normalize(toPointLight - v_Position); float diffuseDiff = 0.0; // The diffuse difference contributed from current light diffuseDiff = max(dot(v_Normal, lightVector), 0.0); diffuseDiff = diffuseDiff * (1.0 / (1.0 + ((1.0-u_LightPower[i])* distance * distance))); //Determine attenuatio diffuse += diffuseDiff; gl_FragColor.rgb *= vec3(1.0) / ((vec3(1.0) + ((vec3(1.0) - vec3(u_LightColours[i]))*diffuseDiff))); //The expensive part } diffuse += 0.1; //Add ambient light gl_FragColor.rgb *= diffuse; } Am I making any rookie mistakes? Or am I just being unrealistic about what I can do? Thanks in advance
    • By yahiko00
      Hi,
      Not sure to post at the right place, if not, please forgive me...
      For a game project I am working on, I would like to implement a 2D starfield as a background.
      I do not want to deal with static tiles, since I plan to slowly animate the starfield. So, I am trying to figure out how to generate a random starfield for the entire map.
      I feel that using a uniform distribution for the stars will not do the trick. Instead I would like something similar to the screenshot below, taken from the game Star Wars: Empire At War (all credits to Lucasfilm, Disney, and so on...).

      Is there someone who could have an idea of a distribution which could result in such a starfield?
      Any insight would be appreciated
  • Popular Now