Sign in to follow this  
ileonte

OpenGL How do you structure your geometry data ?

Recommended Posts

I've been fiddling with OpenGL lately. I've done some pretty basic stuff (I can load 3DS files, lighting, texturing, move the camera around, etc.) but with no 'logic' behind it - I just fly around 'space' with floating objects :) Now I'd like to start actually making a small game but I'm having a hard time figuring out how I should structure my data.

Say I have a scene where I have to load several meshes from different files. These will be structured into 'objects' (houses, trees, cars, whatever) which will be part of the scene graph (tree) (1). On top of this I will probably end up using an octtree to perform view frustum culling (2). Right now I'm using display lists to draw the meshes but that can lead to inefficient culling (say I have an object so large that I can only display a small part of it - using display lists would still cause me to draw the entire object). I was thinking of switching to indexed arrays (glDrawElements() and co.) in order to be able to 'cut' the geometry data using the view frustum bounding planes (3).

This is where I hit the road block:
(*) how do I structure the geometry data so that (1),(2) and (3) can be easily done ?
(*) how do I structure the geometry data so that I can handle the above as well as moving objects ?

Any and all tips are welcome and greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my experience it doesn't work like that

Each major type of object lends itself to different rendering techniques and different frustum culling approaches etc.

For example:

Tree instance data is loaded when they are potentially visible
actual visibility is a simple case of intersecting the view frustum with a 5x5 uniform grid (of cells surrounding the camera)

At no point in that scenario would an octree help.

In fact octrees are not much use in a video game, maybe in architectural rendering etc.

I group my objects like so:

- mostly static (either don't move or don't move far) trees, bldgs, birds, rocks
- totally dynamic (could be anywhere at any time)
- terrain

So don't make your mind up too soon and end up wasting time and energy on things like octrees - wait until you understanding the issues (taking into account instancing and impostering etc.) and the right solution will then be obvious.

I think everybody builds an octree only to find out they are rubbish.

What isn't rubbish: uniform grids, spatial hashes, modulo grids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact octree has been useful mainly and probably just with voxel rendering. It is also possible to not use any optimisation scheme at all with current gpus (though it is not common in complex scenes).

Optimisation is based upon what kind of scene are you rendering, games like Oblivion - large open world - are critical in good LOD and frustum culling ... no occlusion is probably needed (it might also slow it down!).

Frustum culling can be done simply testing objects bounding box (the best is axis aligned ... it makes it simple and fast) against frustum ... that is 6 planes (left, right, top, bottom, near and far) ... or one can use even bounding box of view frustum to make it even more simple (and faster).

I'm structuring my data in a more complicated way, I store model and its bounding volume hierarchy (optimisation scheme I need for raytracing), In fact octree has been useful mainly and probably just with voxel rendering. It is also possible to not use any optimisation scheme at all with current gpus (though it is not common in complex scenes).

Optimisation is based upon what kind of scene are you rendering, games like Oblivion - large open world - are critical in good LOD and frustum culling ... no occlusion is probably needed (it might also slow it down!).

Frustum culling can be done simply testing objects bounding box (the best is axis aligned ... it makes it simple and fast) against frustum ... that is 6 planes (left, right, top, bottom, near and far) ... or one can use even bounding box of view frustum to make it even more simple (and faster).

I'm structuring my data in a more complicated way, scene holds models and tree of them, models holds mesh id, material id, where mesh holds the model (vertices, tangents, and such) and bounding volume hierarchy of the model, material holds material properties and texture ids, textures holds texture itself.
The meshes/models are divided to fully static (I build model BVH just once, at application start, again they're inserted into scene tree just once at start of level), dynamic (non skinned, non deforming ... again I build their BVH just once, although they're removed and re-inserted every time they move) and fully dynamic (skinned, deforming ... I have to rebuild their BVH every frame they're deforming/moving, and remove and re-insert them into scene every time they move).

For handling moving objects it is the best to have them in some leaf node and every frame they move, remove that leaf and insert them into new one, best suited for them (you have to do some search of course).

Cutting parts of geometry is practically useless unless you use really huge model. The only huge model you should use for beginning should be terrain afaik, and it is better to compose it from cells (with good LOD and applied view frustum culling), they are very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you both for your replies. There are a few things I don't understand.

First, you say that 'cutting' geometry is useless in practice. I don't really understand this point. Say that one of the view frustum bounding plane intersects several models totaling 2 million faces of which only 100.000 faces are actually visible. How is it not desirable to cull those 1.9 million invisible faces ?

Second, you seem to be advocating 'specialized' culling methods optimized based on the type of game that I'm working on. This seems counter-productive to me, clearly against the 'game engine' paradigm. Surely there must exist generic methods to perform culling irrespective of the type of scene I'm rendering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because in games, the only objects you're likely to have that are of that scale are the ground and the sky and there are better ways of culling both of those.

In general, most objects will either be "human scale" -- people, trees, vehicles etc, which can be culled or drawn in their entirety, or they can reasonably easily be subdivided -- buildings can be split into components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would advise to use Octrees for big static meshes. I've used them in my engines and they certainly have a big impact on the speed of rendering.

For dynamic objects, try to do narrow-phase collisions first and if you still have a slow engine, then that's the time to find other ways to optimize rendering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Because in games, the only objects you're likely to have that are of that scale are the ground and the sky and there are better ways of culling both of those.

I'm very curious on that. Would you mind to elaborate?

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can split them into sections, for example. The landscape can be turned into square chunks. You only draw chunks which are visible. You *can* do this with an oct tree or stuff like that, but if your landscape chunks are all the same size, you can just do it with grid-based calculations.

For example, you know which grid section the camera is over. So you immediately have a pretty good candidate set. If your camera is roughly horizontal or downwards pointing, you can possibly construct a grid which contains the rotation angle about the vertical at which relative grid chunks are visible.

Or you could just take the NxN square around the camera and test each chunk for visibility. Or you could assume the MxM and draw it and then just test the NxN larger square's chunks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by relsoft
I would advise to use Octrees for big static meshes. I've used them in my engines and they certainly have a big impact on the speed of rendering.

For dynamic objects, try to do narrow-phase collisions first and if you still have a slow engine, then that's the time to find other ways to optimize rendering.
Seconded, a lightweight, non-recursive Octree will definitely help if your scene is suitable (not much occlusion, relatively static and high total polygon count with lop sided ratio of visible:non-visible at any given time). They are very easy to write as well, so hardly a waste of time if you have no scheme at all, in fact a great way to ease into a more complex system.

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  

  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628305
    • Total Posts
      2981967
  • Similar Content

    • By mellinoe
      Hi all,
      First time poster here, although I've been reading posts here for quite a while. This place has been invaluable for learning graphics programming -- thanks for a great resource!
      Right now, I'm working on a graphics abstraction layer for .NET which supports D3D11, Vulkan, and OpenGL at the moment. I have implemented most of my planned features already, and things are working well. Some remaining features that I am planning are Compute Shaders, and some flavor of read-write shader resources. At the moment, my shaders can just get simple read-only access to a uniform (or constant) buffer, a texture, or a sampler. Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time grasping the distinctions between all of the different kinds of read-write resources that are available. In D3D alone, there seem to be 5 or 6 different kinds of resources with similar but different characteristics. On top of that, I get the impression that some of them are more or less "obsoleted" by the newer kinds, and don't have much of a place in modern code. There seem to be a few pivots:
      The data source/destination (buffer or texture) Read-write or read-only Structured or unstructured (?) Ordered vs unordered (?) These are just my observations based on a lot of MSDN and OpenGL doc reading. For my library, I'm not interested in exposing every possibility to the user -- just trying to find a good "middle-ground" that can be represented cleanly across API's which is good enough for common scenarios.
      Can anyone give a sort of "overview" of the different options, and perhaps compare/contrast the concepts between Direct3D, OpenGL, and Vulkan? I'd also be very interested in hearing how other folks have abstracted these concepts in their libraries.
    • By aejt
      I recently started getting into graphics programming (2nd try, first try was many years ago) and I'm working on a 3d rendering engine which I hope to be able to make a 3D game with sooner or later. I have plenty of C++ experience, but not a lot when it comes to graphics, and while it's definitely going much better this time, I'm having trouble figuring out how assets are usually handled by engines.
      I'm not having trouble with handling the GPU resources, but more so with how the resources should be defined and used in the system (materials, models, etc).
      This is my plan now, I've implemented most of it except for the XML parts and factories and those are the ones I'm not sure of at all:
      I have these classes:
      For GPU resources:
      Geometry: holds and manages everything needed to render a geometry: VAO, VBO, EBO. Texture: holds and manages a texture which is loaded into the GPU. Shader: holds and manages a shader which is loaded into the GPU. For assets relying on GPU resources:
      Material: holds a shader resource, multiple texture resources, as well as uniform settings. Mesh: holds a geometry and a material. Model: holds multiple meshes, possibly in a tree structure to more easily support skinning later on? For handling GPU resources:
      ResourceCache<T>: T can be any resource loaded into the GPU. It owns these resources and only hands out handles to them on request (currently string identifiers are used when requesting handles, but all resources are stored in a vector and each handle only contains resource's index in that vector) Resource<T>: The handles given out from ResourceCache. The handles are reference counted and to get the underlying resource you simply deference like with pointers (*handle).  
      And my plan is to define everything into these XML documents to abstract away files:
      Resources.xml for ref-counted GPU resources (geometry, shaders, textures) Resources are assigned names/ids and resource files, and possibly some attributes (what vertex attributes does this geometry have? what vertex attributes does this shader expect? what uniforms does this shader use? and so on) Are reference counted using ResourceCache<T> Assets.xml for assets using the GPU resources (materials, meshes, models) Assets are not reference counted, but they hold handles to ref-counted resources. References the resources defined in Resources.xml by names/ids. The XMLs are loaded into some structure in memory which is then used for loading the resources/assets using factory classes:
      Factory classes for resources:
      For example, a texture factory could contain the texture definitions from the XML containing data about textures in the game, as well as a cache containing all loaded textures. This means it has mappings from each name/id to a file and when asked to load a texture with a name/id, it can look up its path and use a "BinaryLoader" to either load the file and create the resource directly, or asynchronously load the file's data into a queue which then can be read from later to create the resources synchronously in the GL context. These factories only return handles.
      Factory classes for assets:
      Much like for resources, these classes contain the definitions for the assets they can load. For example, with the definition the MaterialFactory will know which shader, textures and possibly uniform a certain material has, and with the help of TextureFactory and ShaderFactory, it can retrieve handles to the resources it needs (Shader + Textures), setup itself from XML data (uniform values), and return a created instance of requested material. These factories return actual instances, not handles (but the instances contain handles).
       
       
      Is this a good or commonly used approach? Is this going to bite me in the ass later on? Are there other more preferable approaches? Is this outside of the scope of a 3d renderer and should be on the engine side? I'd love to receive and kind of advice or suggestions!
      Thanks!
    • By nedondev
      I 'm learning how to create game by using opengl with c/c++ coding, so here is my fist game. In video description also have game contain in Dropbox. May be I will make it better in future.
      Thanks.
    • By Abecederia
      So I've recently started learning some GLSL and now I'm toying with a POM shader. I'm trying to optimize it and notice that it starts having issues at high texture sizes, especially with self-shadowing.
      Now I know POM is expensive either way, but would pulling the heightmap out of the normalmap alpha channel and in it's own 8bit texture make doing all those dozens of texture fetches more cheap? Or is everything in the cache aligned to 32bit anyway? I haven't implemented texture compression yet, I think that would help? But regardless, should there be a performance boost from decoupling the heightmap? I could also keep it in a lower resolution than the normalmap if that would improve performance.
      Any help is much appreciated, please keep in mind I'm somewhat of a newbie. Thanks!
    • By test opty
      Hi,
      I'm trying to learn OpenGL through a website and have proceeded until this page of it. The output is a simple triangle. The problem is the complexity.
      I have read that page several times and tried to analyse the code but I haven't understood the code properly and completely yet. This is the code:
       
      #include <glad/glad.h> #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> #include <C:\Users\Abbasi\Desktop\std_lib_facilities_4.h> using namespace std; //****************************************************************************** void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height); void processInput(GLFWwindow *window); // settings const unsigned int SCR_WIDTH = 800; const unsigned int SCR_HEIGHT = 600; const char *vertexShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "layout (location = 0) in vec3 aPos;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " gl_Position = vec4(aPos.x, aPos.y, aPos.z, 1.0);\n" "}\0"; const char *fragmentShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "out vec4 FragColor;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " FragColor = vec4(1.0f, 0.5f, 0.2f, 1.0f);\n" "}\n\0"; //******************************* int main() { // glfw: initialize and configure // ------------------------------ glfwInit(); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MAJOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MINOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_PROFILE, GLFW_OPENGL_CORE_PROFILE); // glfw window creation GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(SCR_WIDTH, SCR_HEIGHT, "My First Triangle", nullptr, nullptr); if (window == nullptr) { cout << "Failed to create GLFW window" << endl; glfwTerminate(); return -1; } glfwMakeContextCurrent(window); glfwSetFramebufferSizeCallback(window, framebuffer_size_callback); // glad: load all OpenGL function pointers if (!gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress)) { cout << "Failed to initialize GLAD" << endl; return -1; } // build and compile our shader program // vertex shader int vertexShader = glCreateShader(GL_VERTEX_SHADER); glShaderSource(vertexShader, 1, &vertexShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(vertexShader); // check for shader compile errors int success; char infoLog[512]; glGetShaderiv(vertexShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(vertexShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::VERTEX::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // fragment shader int fragmentShader = glCreateShader(GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER); glShaderSource(fragmentShader, 1, &fragmentShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(fragmentShader); // check for shader compile errors glGetShaderiv(fragmentShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(fragmentShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::FRAGMENT::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // link shaders int shaderProgram = glCreateProgram(); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, vertexShader); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, fragmentShader); glLinkProgram(shaderProgram); // check for linking errors glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_LINK_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetProgramInfoLog(shaderProgram, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::PROGRAM::LINKING_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } glDeleteShader(vertexShader); glDeleteShader(fragmentShader); // set up vertex data (and buffer(s)) and configure vertex attributes float vertices[] = { -0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // left 0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // right 0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f // top }; unsigned int VBO, VAO; glGenVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glGenBuffers(1, &VBO); // bind the Vertex Array Object first, then bind and set vertex buffer(s), //and then configure vertex attributes(s). glBindVertexArray(VAO); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, VBO); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertices), vertices, GL_STATIC_DRAW); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 3 * sizeof(float), (void*)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); // note that this is allowed, the call to glVertexAttribPointer registered VBO // as the vertex attribute's bound vertex buffer object so afterwards we can safely unbind glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0); // You can unbind the VAO afterwards so other VAO calls won't accidentally // modify this VAO, but this rarely happens. Modifying other // VAOs requires a call to glBindVertexArray anyways so we generally don't unbind // VAOs (nor VBOs) when it's not directly necessary. glBindVertexArray(0); // uncomment this call to draw in wireframe polygons. //glPolygonMode(GL_FRONT_AND_BACK, GL_LINE); // render loop while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) { // input // ----- processInput(window); // render // ------ glClearColor(0.2f, 0.3f, 0.3f, 1.0f); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); // draw our first triangle glUseProgram(shaderProgram); glBindVertexArray(VAO); // seeing as we only have a single VAO there's no need to // bind it every time, but we'll do so to keep things a bit more organized glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3); // glBindVertexArray(0); // no need to unbind it every time // glfw: swap buffers and poll IO events (keys pressed/released, mouse moved etc.) glfwSwapBuffers(window); glfwPollEvents(); } // optional: de-allocate all resources once they've outlived their purpose: glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glDeleteBuffers(1, &VBO); // glfw: terminate, clearing all previously allocated GLFW resources. glfwTerminate(); return 0; } //************************************************** // process all input: query GLFW whether relevant keys are pressed/released // this frame and react accordingly void processInput(GLFWwindow *window) { if (glfwGetKey(window, GLFW_KEY_ESCAPE) == GLFW_PRESS) glfwSetWindowShouldClose(window, true); } //******************************************************************** // glfw: whenever the window size changed (by OS or user resize) this callback function executes void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height) { // make sure the viewport matches the new window dimensions; note that width and // height will be significantly larger than specified on retina displays. glViewport(0, 0, width, height); } As you see, about 200 lines of complicated code only for a simple triangle. 
      I don't know what parts are necessary for that output. And also, what the correct order of instructions for such an output or programs is, generally. That start point is too complex for a beginner of OpenGL like me and I don't know how to make the issue solved. What are your ideas please? What is the way to figure both the code and the whole program out correctly please?
      I wish I'd read a reference that would teach me OpenGL through a step-by-step method. 
  • Popular Now