• 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
theagentd

OpenGL
GPU Skinning and frame interpolation

15 posts in this topic

Hello. I've been trying to do skinning, and so far I think I've kind of figured out the math behind it. I've successfully loaded an MD5 mesh and I'm working on implementing CPU skinning for a small animation following this guide: [url="http://3dgep.com/?p=1053"]http://3dgep.com/?p=1053[/url]. I think I can get software skinning working quite easily but I definitely want to do the skinning in a vertex shader. I found another tutorial on the same website that covers this: [url="http://3dgep.com/?p=1356"]http://3dgep.com/?p=1356[/url]. The "problem" is that it seems to do the bone interpolation on the CPU and then submit the data each frame to the GPU. I just transforming 100 bones shouldn't be that CPU heavy, but I might potentially have a thousand instances of the same mesh but in different animations. Therefore I also want to use instancing to reduce the CPU. Since my game is an RTS game the GPU is severely underused even though I offloaded fog of war rendering, so trading GPU cycles for CPU cycles is a good thing in my case.

I could just multi-thread the bone interpolation for an almost linear increase in performance, but it I still thought that it should be possible to off-load almost everything onto the GPU. That's when I stumbled over this white paper: [url="http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10/direct3d/Source/SkinnedInstancing/doc/SkinnedInstancingWhitePaper.pdf"]http://developer.dow...gWhitePaper.pdf[/url]. It seems to do exactly what I want by storing bone matrices in a texture, which was something I had thought of doing. However, the implementation in the white-paper does not seem to have any kind of bone interpolation, and simply rounds the frame to the closest frame (though this isn't written anywhere). I'm 99.9% sure they don't re-upload the bone matrices each frame since they seem to keep the bone data for each animation and frame, not for each individual instance. Losing interpolation seems like a huge step backwards, so I would definitely not implement skinning if that turned out to be the cost.

I figured I could just upload even "rawer" bone data to my animation texture, meaning I'd keep a 3D vector and a quaternion per bone instead of a matrix and then do the interpolation between the two frames in the vertex shader. The amount of data sampled would only increase by about 33%:

1 matrix per weight = RGBA 32-bit float x 3
2 vectors and 2 quaternions = RGBA 32-bit float x 4

I would also have to upload additional static data to the weights (a position for each weight). The problem is the additional logic needed to transform each vertex since the interpolation would have to be redone for each vertex. I think this additional cost will be almost unnoticeable though since the vertex shader should be bandwidth / texture limited anyway. If there happens to be built-in functions to do slerp (I've found mix(...), but I'm not sure if it's the right one) I think the additional logic cost would be negligible.

In short, I'd port this exact function to a GLSL vertex shader:
[CODE]
for (int i = 0; i < m.vertices.size(); i++) {
Vertex v = m.vertices.get(i);
float x = 0, y = 0, z = 0;
for (int k = 0; k < v.weightCount; k++) {
Weight w = m.weights.get(v.startWeight + k); //v.startWeight = index in list of weights
Joint j = bindPoseJoints.get(w.joint); //Joint contains position and orientation. I'd be using the animation joints, not the bind pose joints of course.
rot(j.orientation, w.position, temp); //Quaternion rotation of weight position, temp is a temporary Vec3.
Vector3f.add(temp, j.position, temp); //Add joint position
temp.scale(w.bias);
x += temp.x;
y += temp.y;
z += temp.z;
}
vertexData[mesh].putFloat(x).putFloat(y).putFloat(z); //Load data into an array to send it to OpenGL
}
[/CODE]

I'm pretty much a skinning n00b, but these are my thoughts on it. The main problem is the amount of (static) data needed per vertex (4 x vec3 per vertex for the weight position), but if the cost is acceptable I strongly suspect that this will have better performance than doing the interpolation on the CPU, at least in my case.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's better to bind a texture containing already interpolated matrices.
Interpolate on the CPU using appropriate structure (most likely 3D vectors for translation and scaling, and a Quaternion for rotation).

With each vertex attribute, pass your weights (you probably want to maximize them to a reasonable number. I think most people use a maximum of 4 weights per vertex), and use them as look-up values to the texture.

I have never done GPU skinning yet, but I plan to do it pretty soon and I think that's how I am going to do it. Sounds reasonable on both CPU and GPU, each doing the appropriate task.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize that the GPU would have to interpolate 1 to 4 bones per vertex. With an average of 2.5 weights per vertex and a around 1 000 vertices, that's about 2 500 bone interpolations per instance. A CPU implementation would only have to process each bone once, which in the case of my test model means only 33 interpolations per instance.

In the end I think I'll just implement both just to see if and how much slower the GPU version is...

EDIT: Oh, and the function in my first post does not contain any frame interpolation. Doh!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Things that don't change: weights and bone indices. So its pretty obvious to keep those on the GPU. Also keep the initial vertex position (bind pose). Take your for loop and put it on the GPU. For each object, compute the current frame matrix, and send all those bones down for that object. If 2 of the same character models are used with 1 running and 1 walking, then you have to send the walk bones for the one, and the run bone matrices for the other.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='theagentd' timestamp='1327020506' post='4904419']
I realize that the GPU would have to interpolate 1 to 4 bones per vertex. With an average of 2.5 weights per vertex and a around 1 000 vertices, that's about 2 500 bone interpolations per instance. A CPU implementation would only have to process each bone once, which in the case of my test model means only 33 interpolations per instance.

In the end I think I'll just implement both just to see if and how much slower the GPU version is...

EDIT: Oh, and the function in my first post does not contain any frame interpolation. Doh!
[/quote]

Having just done that I can tell you that with running all four weights per vertex per bone (33 you say? you're animating Bob, aren't you? :) ) on the GPU, you'll be looking at around 30-100 fold [b]increase[/b] in speed compared to smart skinning per-weight on the CPU. The relevant timings for me in debug mode are ~1-1.5 milliseconds for skinning on the CPU and 0.025-0.1 milliseconds on the GPU (this is using a 3 year old mobile version of GF 240GT). This assumes bones are animated/interpolated on the CPU and passed to the shader via a uniform.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1327023957' post='4904431']
[quote name='theagentd' timestamp='1327020506' post='4904419']
I realize that the GPU would have to interpolate 1 to 4 bones per vertex. With an average of 2.5 weights per vertex and a around 1 000 vertices, that's about 2 500 bone interpolations per instance. A CPU implementation would only have to process each bone once, which in the case of my test model means only 33 interpolations per instance.

In the end I think I'll just implement both just to see if and how much slower the GPU version is...

EDIT: Oh, and the function in my first post does not contain any frame interpolation. Doh!
[/quote]

Having just done that I can tell you that with running all four weights per vertex per bone (33 you say? you're animating Bob, aren't you? [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img] ) on the GPU, you'll be looking at around 30-100 fold [b]increase[/b] in speed compared to smart skinning per-weight on the CPU. The relevant timings for me in debug mode are ~1-1.5 milliseconds for skinning on the CPU and 0.025-0.1 milliseconds on the GPU (this is using a 3 year old mobile version of GF 240GT). This assumes bones are animated/interpolated on the CPU and passed to the shader via a uniform.
[/quote]
Yes, of course the GPU is faster than the CPU, but the real fight is between the hybrid CPU/GPU solution and a pure GPU solution. You're talking about the "hybrid" one, were the bone interpolation is done on the CPU and all per-vertex calculations are done on the GPU. In my first post I suggested offloading the interpolation to the GPU too, which would slightly lessen the amount of CPU cycles and bandwidth needed for a possibly big GPU hit. You're comparing the CPU/GPU solution to a pure CPU solution. And yes, I hope to get a few Bobs swinging their lanterns around soon. =D
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='theagentd' timestamp='1327025055' post='4904438']
In my first post I suggested offloading the interpolation to the GPU too, which would slightly lessen the amount of CPU cycles and bandwidth needed for a possibly big GPU hit. You're comparing the CPU/GPU solution to a pure CPU solution. And yes, I hope to get a few Bobs swinging their lanterns around soon. =D
[/quote]

Don't bother. Precompute your skeleton at whatever framerate that your target is (say 40-50) for all animations and round to the closest precomputed frame when rendering. You'll end up with zero computation time and the memory footprint is negligible.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its also good to note that not much animated stuff actually is rendered in any game other than an RTS. In that case you could worry about doing other things.
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1327026591' post='4904441']
[quote name='theagentd' timestamp='1327025055' post='4904438']
In my first post I suggested offloading the interpolation to the GPU too, which would slightly lessen the amount of CPU cycles and bandwidth needed for a possibly big GPU hit. You're comparing the CPU/GPU solution to a pure CPU solution. And yes, I hope to get a few Bobs swinging their lanterns around soon. =D
[/quote]

Don't bother. Precompute your skeleton at whatever framerate that your target is (say 40-50) for all animations and round to the closest precomputed frame when rendering. You'll end up with zero computation time and the memory footprint is negligible.
[/quote]
But what if I want a super slow-motion effect that effectively drops the game speed to 1/10th? That would force me to precompute waaay too many frames for each animation. Also, I'd prefer the accuracy of real-time bone interpolation. That's a good suggestion though. Maybe precomputing a few extra frames to increase the framerate of each animation to 3x, and then not using slerp but simple lerp+normalizing on the quaternion in a vertex shader would produce accurate enough motion. You could even precompute with bicubic interpolation too.

Each frame requires about a kilobyte of data, Each animation may be shared between different meshes if they have the same skeleton layout, so the number of animations won't be that many. Let's say 20 units with different animation sets, each with 10 different 2 second animations. That'd be 20 x 10 x 2x24 frames of raw data --> each frame is 33 bones x 7 floats x 4 bytes per float --> 20x10x2x24x33x7x4 = 8.45MBs of data. Multiplying the number of frames by 4 is still just around 35MBs of data, so precomputing is a very possible solution. Nice idea!


[quote name='dpadam450' timestamp='1327027864' post='4904445']
Its also good to note that not much animated stuff actually is rendered in any game other than an RTS. In that case you could worry about doing other things.
[/quote]
I don't really understand what you're saying...? ._.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='theagentd' timestamp='1327032459' post='4904460']
But what if I want a super slow-motion effect that effectively drops the game speed to 1/10th? That would force me to precompute waaay too many frames for each animation. Also, I'd prefer the accuracy of real-time bone interpolation. That's a good suggestion though. Maybe precomputing a few extra frames to increase the framerate of each animation to 3x, and then not using slerp but simple lerp+normalizing on the quaternion in a vertex shader would produce accurate enough motion. You could even precompute with bicubic interpolation too.
[/quote]

Question: is the "what if" actually a realistic expectation? Will you be implementing bullet time?

If the answer is yes, then you could do some dynamic branching - if the required animation speed drops below a certain threshold (say, the precomputed framerate), then interpolate the skeleton for that model on the fly. Note that bone interpolation is cheap for an average model. 30-60 bones isn't that big of a deal really and it's okay to do it when needed. The real optimization you should be looking into here is the actual number of updates per second. If you're running hundreds of models at 100 FPS, then updating them each frame is going to affect said FPS. If you update each skeleton every other frame, you won't be compromising any visual quality and you'll have effectively halved the work load. What is really expensive here is the skinning, which is done on the GPU. Note that the Bob model actually has a relatively low poly count (around 800 vertices) - take a proper model with 10k vertices and 50 bones and you'll be looking at roughly the same animation load on the CPU, but a 15 times more expensive skinning phase on the GPU. Vertices ramp up as time goes on. There's really no need to ramp up the number of bones in most cases.

[quote name='theagentd' timestamp='1327032459' post='4904460']
Each frame requires about a kilobyte of data, Each animation may be shared between different meshes if they have the same skeleton layout, so the number of animations won't be that many. Let's say 20 units with different animation sets, each with 10 different 2 second animations. That'd be 20 x 10 x 2x24 frames of raw data --> each frame is 33 bones x 7 floats x 4 bytes per float --> 20x10x2x24x33x7x4 = 8.45MBs of data. Multiplying the number of frames by 4 is still just around 35MBs of data, so precomputing is a very possible solution. Nice idea!
[/quote]

It's likelier you want to store your animation as a list of matrices, not 7 floats, for faster access. Also, think about it realistically - if your model comes at 24 FPS, then multiplying it by 2 will be enough for any human. 100 keyframes per second will give you smooth slow motion, which you very likely won't be needing.

[quote name='dpadam450' timestamp='1327027864' post='4904445']
Its also good to note that not much animated stuff actually is rendered in any game other than an RTS. In that case you could worry about doing other things.
[quote]
I don't really understand what you're saying...? ._.
[/quote]
[/quote]

What dpadam450 means is that the only genre in which you will realistically encounter a large number of models that need to be animated individually is an RTS games. In a general case you'll have 10 models tops running around at one time, which is a beeze to animate on the CPU.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the static vertex data, most of the implementations I've seen use a UByte*4 for the associated bone indicies and a UByte*4 for the weights for those indices. This limits each vertex to being associated with only 4 bones, and if a vertex is associated with less bones, then it also performs same math as if it were associated with 4 but it uses weights of 0.0 for the extra bones.
I've usually seen the dynamic/animated bone data represented as a 4x3 (or 3x4) matrix containing rotation/scale/translation transforms relative to the bind-pose.
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1327056930' post='4904544']Also, think about it realistically - if your model comes at 24 FPS, then multiplying it by 2 will be enough for any human. 100 keyframes per second will give you smooth slow motion, which you very likely won't be needing.[/quote]Where does the magic number 24 (or 48) come from? ;P
[quote]What dpadam450 means is that the only genre in which you will realistically encounter a large number of models that need to be animated individually is an RTS games. In a general case you'll have 10 models tops running around at one time, which is a beeze to animate on the CPU.
[/quote]Modern FPS games often have ~50 characters on-screen at once [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/wink.png[/img]
I'm doing a sports game at the moment with 30 characters, each with 60 bones, and who all have multiple different animation sources [i]blended together[/i] unpredictably and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_kinematics"]IK[/url] applied on top -- the whole skeletal update part is still fairly cheap and only takes up a few milliseconds.

I'd personally just implement it in a way that is easily understood first ([i]especially if I was fairly new to skinned animation, which admittedly, I am[/i]) and work on writing a more optimal version after I got the basic one working [i]if it actually turns out to be performing badly[/i].
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Irreversible
To be honest I probably won't be implementing any bullet-time effects, but I will have changeable game speed, which could drop the game speed to a very low value. I still think doing the interpolation in real-time is more accurate, since even if the animation speed matches the game FPS it would still be more accurate to do the interpolation for the exact time. Maybe it really is an unnoticeable difference in 99.999% of all cases. I might not be able to afford the additional cost of lots of slerps each frame even with multithreaded joint interpolation, so getting rid of it and just keeping the precomputed bone matrices in GPU memory might be the best choice anyway. Memory is something I can afford to use more of, so precomputing to about 60-120 frames per second should give enough smoothness in all possible cases. Now I know what the animation quality setting does in games... >_>

I am actually making a real-time strategy game, so I might be having about 100 units on the screen at the same time.


@Hodgman
I've read up quite a lot on GPU skinning and I have more than enough experience with shaders to implement this. Storing the joint translation and orientation in a matrix is probably the best idea as it eliminates the weight positions that would have to be stored per vertex otherwise. I'm loading MD5 meshes and animations, so the maximum number of weights per vertex that format supports is 4, so I'll just stick with that. It also doesn't support joint scales, so that simplifies it further. If using MD5 is a bad idea for some reason, please stop me now!!!
24 frames per second comes from the specific model I'm animating.


In other news, I just managed to get my software skinning working, so Bob is (happily?) waving his lantern around. FPS dropped from 83 FPS to 14 due to the skinning being done on the CPU (well, with 1000 instances though xD). Next I'll move the skinning to a vertex shader but keep joint interpolation on the CPU which is was the standard approach, right? Lastly I'll try a pure GPU solution with precomputed joints stored in a texture.

EDIT: My software implementation is obviously bottlenecked by the skinning. Skinning takes about 65% of the frame time at the moment, possibly a lot more if you count methods that are shared with other parts of the game.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1327059015' post='4904550']
Regarding the static vertex data, most of the implementations I've seen use a UByte*4 for the associated bone indicies and a UByte*4 for the weights for those indices. This limits each vertex to being associated with only 4 bones, and if a vertex is associated with less bones, then it also performs same math as if it were associated with 4 but it uses weights of 0.0 for the extra bones.
I've usually seen the dynamic/animated bone data represented as a 4x3 (or 3x4) matrix containing rotation/scale/translation transforms relative to the bind-pose.
[/quote]

Incidentally, I don't have this working yet, but I'm packing indexes with a ratio of 3:1 into float vectors while maintaining 8-bit precision (I haven't done the actual math as to what the maximum practical precision is, but the packing is the same as RGB2Float), limiting the model to 255 bones, which should be enough in even the most fringe cases, but it enables more concurrently influencing bones without increasing storage. As for packing weights into a byte values, that results in a precision of 0.0039. I'm actually fairly curious as to whether this is enough (if it is, I'll definitely want to pack my weights as well). Incidentally, I'm limiting myself to 4 concurrent data streams since I'm using transform feedback to do the skinning, which supports 4 bones at most for now as the largest vector stream that can be passed to TF is vec4, which limits the number of weights that can be blended.

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1327059015' post='4904550']
[quote name='irreversible' timestamp='1327056930' post='4904544']Also, think about it realistically - if your model comes at 24 FPS, then multiplying it by 2 will be enough for any human. 100 keyframes per second will give you smooth slow motion, which you very likely won't be needing.[/quote]Where does the magic number 24 (or 48) come from? ;P
[/quote]

Oh, that's from the Bob model discussed above [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
[quote]Modern FPS games often have ~50 characters on-screen at once [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/wink.png[/img]
I'm doing a sports game at the moment with 30 characters, each with 60 bones, and who all have multiple different animation sources [i]blended together[/i] unpredictably and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_kinematics"]IK[/url] applied on top -- the whole skeletal update part is still fairly cheap and only takes up a few milliseconds.
[/quote]

A fair point, but it really boils down to what the game is about. I'm personally targeting a non-kinematic solution (which, admittedly, begs the question why would one need skeletal animation anyway?).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm saying is 2 things, which someone on gamedev that is a moderater apparently doesn't understand so they rate down.

Don't over-optimize something that doesn't need it. Whatever method you do with probably be fine, unless you are really drawing a massive amount or even moderate amout of animated stuff. Unless you have an artist to make 50 models for an FPS (which I find way too high a statistic anyway), then don't worry to much about a bottleneck that may or may not exist for your specific game. Most cases just on the cpu take all the bones between last frame and the next keyframe, blend those bones into new ones and send them down to the GPU.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]I'm personally targeting a non-kinematic solution (which, admittedly, begs the question why would one need skeletal animation anyway?).[/quote]
Kinematics is moving, so your probably thinking of inverse kinematics, or inverse of momement. If you have an animated character, it has bones created from art in order to make frames of animation. Any 3d object has a skeleton.
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 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
    • By afraidofdark
      I have just noticed that, in quake 3 and half - life, dynamic models are effected from light map. For example in dark areas, gun that player holds seems darker. How did they achieve this effect ? I can use image based lighting techniques however (Like placing an environment probe and using it for reflections and ambient lighting), this tech wasn't used in games back then, so there must be a simpler method to do this.
      Here is a link that shows how modern engines does it. Indirect Lighting Cache It would be nice if you know a paper that explains this technique. Can I apply this to quake 3' s light map generator and bsp format ?
  • Popular Now