• 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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheLabRat

OpenGL
OpenGL's Future?

17 posts in this topic

I''m starting to doubt the future of GL. With DX8 out and the huge GeForce 3 Support. Is it time to learn D3D? Should I stop struggling with GL driver incompatibilities? It just seems that every card manufacturer is not keeping to the standard. My game engine provides massively different output on a variety of cards. The only card it looks right on is Voodoo 3''s. On every other card, buffering is messed up, or lighting is not working, or colors aren''t correct. I can''t stand it any more. Is D3D better implemented across the board? Please help. I''m ready to drop this whole programming idea and become a drug dealer - it has to be easier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think OpenGL''s future is just fine. Incompatible? It''s supported on nVidia and ATI. Any big graphics card supports OpenGL. Everything you can do in d3d with the geforce 3 you can do in OpenGL. As far as the voodoo 3 thing. they were bought out. nVidia is pretty much setting the standards for OpenGL extensions. the arb board is releasing OpenGL 1.3 in a few months. I think OpenGL is still going strong.

HHSDrum@yahoo.com
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite doubtful about OpenGL''s future too. First of all, Direct3D is catching up to OpenGL FAST! But, D3D still has a lot of work to do in my opinion. And until OGL becomes unsupported on every card known to man, I will continue to use it. I just wish MS would work on an OpenGL 1.2 implementation for Windows.

------------------------------
Trent (ShiningKnight)
E-mail me
OpenGL Game Programming Tutorials
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodoo drivers has bad reputation for both OpenGL and Direct3D so it is probably something wrong with your code. OpenGL can do more with a GF3 than D3D. Recently did someone asked on the Microsoft DirectGraphics newsgroup why the shadow map extensions on GF3 is not supported by D3D. The reply from MS clearly showned that they do not even know about it.

Direct3D may catching up fast but they do not even pretends to be faster anymore. The current goal seems to something like OpenGL. MS releasing 1.2 ( or 1.3) would be nice but not particulary important.

I do not know which one is the best. The difference is perhaps not so big anymore.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I definately think OpenGL still has a future. Remember that OpenGL is also crossplatform. Runs on Windows, MAC and linux/ DirectX only runs on Windows.

Quake 3 was written using OpenGL and lots of the other new games use OpenGL.

Will Doom 3 use OpenGL or DirectX ?

Jan
http://home.global.co.za/~jhorn
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We, end-users and game coders are deciding if OpenGL has a future.
OpenGL 1.3 is coming, OpenML also, the ARB is talking about replacing M$ OpenGL implementation to support the latest OpenGL.

I confident about its future.

As far as we will support it, OpenGL will stay alive.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why doubt the only supported crossplatform 3D graphics API''s future, when there''s nothing wrong with it? What would there be to replace it? Remember, there''s a lot of workstation''s out there that don''t use Windows.

About the Geforce 3, NVidia released a statement saying more of its features could be accessed through OpenGL than Direct3D. They didn''t want people to think that Direct3D''s new features were all that it could do.

Also: Microsoft has finished the OpenGL 1.2 implementation for Windows, they''ve been testing it for at least a year now. SGI made an OpenGL 1.2 implementation for Windows a while back, but Microsoft won''t allow them to release it (for some unknown, but probably obvious to most of us, reason).

So far so good, not a flamewar yet...

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well no API''s future is realy defined. Most fade away after a time, or are replaced by newer API''s. OpenGL isn''t bad off, and neither is DirectX. The problem is that no one can truely see the future until it''s right in front of them. If you notice most professional game engines out now a days support DirectX, OpenGL, and some even still support Glide. It''s foolish to build a box around yourself and never leave it. Learn both API''s! Just because you know both doesn''t mean you can''t prefer one over the other. As long as you know both you''ll never be stuck in a position of having to worry about either''s future.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Open GL definitely is here to stay I dont see it going away for a pretty good time or simply forever, the reasons are:

0.-Is already a 20+ year old system, it has endured time incredibly well already. Unlike DX which has been "re-designed" almost as a whole in every compilation.
(all arrays start at zero we all know that. =) )

1.-Direct3d only works on MS systems and thats its biggest problem, specially now that consoles are getting much more attention than the PC market (sad but true) and it will prolly stay that way from now on, specially when FREE to develop consoles finally arrive (nokia is building one, MS had to open xbox to indies and there is a PS2 linux kit out there) guess which one of those consoles use directx? hint:only xbox and it can also use opengl.

2.-MS os are not that good, everybody complains about them for good reason (the main problem is that somehow they are still DOS able which is a big resource problem and anyway they are buggy as hell due to poor QA), if MS did better OS''s than it does now, they could get some other markets than the PC and with it directx on them, but as it is now, the only ones that use WINDOWZ are those who dont have other choice but to use it, lots of people will love to use ANY other working OS on their systems.. if their favorite programs and hardware worked on it which is unfortunately not the case... yet.

3.- Read number 1, repeat 3 times then continue.

4.-Opengl is already the standard in graphics programming, at least 70% or more of the world graphics community uses it, almost every tutorial, sgi paper, graphic research is based on it, and on top of that it works! is quite a bit easier to understand than DirectX because it doesnt use the COM system but simple functions, and each day more and more cards are capable of using it.

(skip here if you already are aware of geforce3 opengl extensions)
DX8 made us truly believe that Opengl was toast , due to the vertex buffers and shaders and stuff it delivered, but ID software is making Doom 3 using OpenGl using geforce 3 in no less than a MAC! and they are definetily using vertex buffers and shaders, so they are still used in opengl, only that they are reached through extensions instead of the SDK itself, thats all! Nvidia released the SDK to fully use opengl geforce3 extensions recently.
(Thank you, we now return to our regularly scheduled answer)

Just not to turn this into a flame war, I would advice the following: when you build your game engine, use a DLL like structure to use either opengl or direct3d for rendering, if you only can aim for one, then question the portability of your engine and your own experience and skill then choose one. The choice is finally yours.

Personally I prefered Opengl because I was sick and tired of getting stuck in Dx8 due to the manuals not covering the aspects I needed. And almost no source to get info from. 90% of the info out there is opengl based (check if you dont believe me!)

Opengl is good for at least other 10 or 20 years, even Ms has been forced to be Opengl compatible (on XBOX no less!), most of the best games coming and out there are opengl based or compatible , Opengl is going nowhere for a loooong time.

Now a good question will be:, "will MS and DX still be around in 5-10 years?" XBOX out there (which means MS could dedicate to gaming instead of OS''s, or lose quite a big deal in the progress whichever comes first) linux gaining more strength every day, XP generating high frequency waves of "I wont get that, is against my privacy!", the lost monopoly trials, the info blackouts, the REAL future of MS is simply... uncertain, but that kids is another story.

I hope that helps!

/*Signature start>

Remember kids when stuck with an ugly bug from hell, start chanting:

"The power of C compiles you!"
"The power of C compiles you!!"
"The power of C compiles you!!!"

Gets them every time!

=)

C ya!
*/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t really care. I use both API''s and I love both API''s, no need to prefer one over the other. There is no reason to think that OpenGL will die to, because Linux is growing stronger by the day, which makes OpenGL a lot tastier than that "other" api (due to portability). My vision of the future is this:

1) microsoft dies :-)
1.5) directx dies :-(
2) linux rulez :-)
3) OpenGL rulez :-)

three smileys and one saddy, that''s not to bad!

(PS: I know this is not very realistic, but I can dream can''t I???).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God, i'm sick of people saying "I would like to see MICROSOFT dead". Why ? Why ? cuz it has monopoly over PC industry. Remeber that MICROSOFT was the one who made windows 3.1 , and windows 95 and so on.It made the computer possible, one more step over technology.IT also made u VC++, now tell me if vc++ is a piece of shit ? No !. And i'm sure that it made you proud to see computer evolution growing !!! right ? yeah, it's right!!

HAhaha, how many of u would say no ! if you were told to work for micorsoft ? hummm... i don't see anybody !!! hummm... nobody raised their hand did they ? NO !!

Hahaha, oh i would love to see you guys saying the same if the LINUX took over. Don't rush guys, just don't rush.

"The shortcut is not always the best way "

Metal Typhoon

Edited by - Metal Typhoon on June 26, 2001 9:55:24 PM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Metal Typhoon
HAhaha, how many of u would say no ! if you were told to work for micorsoft ? hummm... i don''t see anybody !!! hummm... nobody raised their hand did they ? NO !!



I was asked to work for them and said no does that count?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it only count if you''re telling the truth otherwise it''s a nothing !!! and by the way work in what area ???

"The shortcut is not always the best way "

Metal Typhoon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!

er *cough* pardon me....

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

MS Visual C++... Good...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh my god.

The brainwashing is complete.

I bet you have never tried any other IDE or compiler.
I bet you return FALSE on an error!! (HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!)

OH my, I am sure I have offended enough people by now.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes i had, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

so why developer use most vc++ instead of Borland or other shit ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHA
(coughs)

hummmm... ?

"The shortcut is not always the best way "

Metal Typhoon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh...

Because ignorant pricks like you only take what is SHOVED up their ass. 99.9% of so called educational programs are SPONSORED by MicroSH*T and thus MUST use VC++. Oh I see Borland or some other shit... THat about wraps it up. Who here uses Borland or some other shit ??

Tell me what is a Compiler. Do you know what its purpose is? Can you tell me the names of 10 compiler vendors?(Better hit google). What IDEs have you used. What language do you even program in? Do you write pee diddly programs(not that there is anything wrong with that) or mission critical Enterprise software? Have you ever written a Portable program? What operating system experience do you have?

Where did you learn to program?

I rest my case.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, sorry, this thread is now getting blocked, at first it was ok (the future of OGL is something a lot of people are interested in). But it has degenerated into compiler wars, and D3D vs OGL wars. Check this forum''s FAQ, we have enough D3D vs OGL flame wars on the message board.

------------------------------
Trent (ShiningKnight)
E-mail me
OpenGL Game Programming Tutorials
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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