Sign in to follow this  

OpenGL Shadow Volumes and Mesh Representations

Recommended Posts

I have some questions that I can't find specific answers for. If anyone is willing to answer enough to point me in the right direction I would be incredibly thankful.

All of these questions are linked to the topic title, in case it doesn't at first appear so.
I have just begun to consider adding shadow volumes to my system, and I am attempting to make somewhat reasonable choices in data structures and/or implementation.
I am implementing the shadow volumes on the CPU rendering with openGL

1. For the most part, models in my system (moving about in the "world") have associated transformation matrices which draw them in the proper positions based on values such as position,rotations,etc. The coordinate positions of vertices stay the same in memory(usually around the origin). I am unsure of how to approach shadow volumes. Do I transform the lights position into the model space? If I did that then the volume would be generated in the model space, so I could just tranform the volume by the same matrices as the model? Is this a pretty standard way to do this?

2. Many silhouette extraction methods rely on building edge lists of all edges in the silhouette. This means building a dynamic array that you can add and delete entries from. It also requires comparing edges to prevent duplicate entries from neighboring polygons, which implies some sorting/searching O(lgN) algorithm to determine if there are duplicates.

My question is if the Half-Edge data structure is a general solution to this? This is my thinking.
-It is very easy to loop through all faces and to retrieve all the edges for a given face
-Half edge data structures can store face normals that are precalculated Up front, so doing cross products to find the normals is not necessary because the Face struct can store the normal (more space for less time)
-It would be easy to add a boolean value to the Edge struct to determine if the edge is currently in the silhouette. (as opposed to keeping a separate edge list)
-Rendering the volume would then require some mesh traversal, instead of having a nice list of edges, you would have to loop through the edge list to round them up. In either case you would still have to build the VBO's, this is just slightly longer.
This would amount to some O(c*n) algorithm(basically looping through the edge list a couple times) as opposed to many of the O(n*lgn) and (n*n) cpu implementations that exist.

3. Related to #2, what are the more popular ways to store polygonal meshes in game dev? I have been sticking to Face/Vertex and Half-Edge meshes.

Before I begin going down this path and putting lots of code into this, I just want to make sure I am not deviating too far from the industry path here.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='obyzouth' timestamp='1335148405' post='4933933']
Before I begin going down this path and putting lots of code into this, I just want to make sure I am not deviating too far from the industry path here.
Well, the industry path is not using shadow volumes any more (as far as I know), the last game was Doom3 (+ games based on this engine), this was 2004. The current state of art for shadows are still shadow maps or one of its 100 variations. [img][/img]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1) This sounds like a sensible approach to me.

2) There's no question mark here, I guess you're wondering about performance?
Traditional implementations are quite slow on the CPU yes, and do require tailored data structures.
A modern implementation can use the vertex-shader to brute-force this step, but it doubles your vertex/polygon counts ([i]or a more modern version could use the geometry shader to do this without doubling of vertex counts[/i]).
As mentioned below, you can actually skip/simplify this step if your models are tessellated well enough.

3) Ideally, you don't have any CPU-side representations of your visual models at all -- they should only live on the GPU inside vertex/index buffers.
If you do have CPU-side representations, they should be customised to best match whatever their purpose is -- ([i]so yes, a half-edge for use by shadow volume extrusion makes sense, but if not performing this task, you would not keep that data around[/i]).

[quote name='Ashaman73' timestamp='1335168258' post='4933999']Well, the industry path is not using shadow volumes any more (as far as I know), the last game was Doom3 (+ games based on this engine), this was 2004. The current state of art for shadows are still shadow maps or one of its 100 variations[/quote]It's definitely true that shadow maps are much more popular these days, but volumes are still in use. I'm shipping a current-gen console game in a few months time, which uses screen-space blurred shadow volumes, because they gave much better quality for much less cost compared to shadow-mapping the same scene ([i]30 animated humans in the 1-100 metre range[/i]). As always, it depends on the situation and your mileage will vary [img][/img]
N.B. we actually skipped expensive silhouette extraction altogether, and simply move back-facing vertices along the light direction -- this doesn't give the correct shadow volumes ([i]they're slightly smaller, and 'pop' slightly as the vertices/light rotate[/i]), but it's ridiculously cheap, and with high-poly models ([i]such as characters[/i]) the artefacts aren't at all noticeable.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashaman: I suppose this is why I had a hard time finding current implementation details. [img][/img] I was in fact scouring doom3 code before I posted the topic, as it was the only full implementation I could find.

Hodgman: This is the answer I expected and was hoping for. Not necessarily any standard, mostly custom solutions build around your individual needs. I won't feel guiltly about doing my own thing then, or trying something wild. [img][/img]

Thanks for the quick replies.

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  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Similar Content

    • By DelicateTreeFrog
      Hello! As an exercise for delving into modern OpenGL, I'm creating a simple .obj renderer. I want to support things like varying degrees of specularity, geometry opacity, things like that, on a per-material basis. Different materials can also have different textures. Basic .obj necessities. I've done this in old school OpenGL, but modern OpenGL has its own thing going on, and I'd like to conform as closely to the standards as possible so as to keep the program running correctly, and I'm hoping to avoid picking up bad habits this early on.
      Reading around on the OpenGL Wiki, one tip in particular really stands out to me on this page:
      For something like a renderer for .obj files, this sort of thing seems almost ideal, but according to the wiki, it's a bad idea. Interesting to note!
      So, here's what the plan is so far as far as loading goes:
      Set up a type for materials so that materials can be created and destroyed. They will contain things like diffuse color, diffuse texture, geometry opacity, and so on, for each material in the .mtl file. Since .obj files are conveniently split up by material, I can load different groups of vertices/normals/UVs and triangles into different blocks of data for different models. When it comes to the rendering, I get a bit lost. I can either:
      Between drawing triangle groups, call glUseProgram to use a different shader for that particular geometry (so a unique shader just for the material that is shared by this triangle group). or
      Between drawing triangle groups, call glUniform a few times to adjust different parameters within the "master shader", such as specularity, diffuse color, and geometry opacity. In both cases, I still have to call glBindTexture between drawing triangle groups in order to bind the diffuse texture used by the material, so there doesn't seem to be a way around having the CPU do *something* during the rendering process instead of letting the GPU do everything all at once.
      The second option here seems less cluttered, however. There are less shaders to keep up with while one "master shader" handles it all. I don't have to duplicate any code or compile multiple shaders. Arguably, I could always have the shader program for each material be embedded in the material itself, and be auto-generated upon loading the material from the .mtl file. But this still leads to constantly calling glUseProgram, much more than is probably necessary in order to properly render the .obj. There seem to be a number of differing opinions on if it's okay to use hundreds of shaders or if it's best to just use tens of shaders.
      So, ultimately, what is the "right" way to do this? Does using a "master shader" (or a few variants of one) bog down the system compared to using hundreds of shader programs each dedicated to their own corresponding materials? Keeping in mind that the "master shaders" would have to track these additional uniforms and potentially have numerous branches of ifs, it may be possible that the ifs will lead to additional and unnecessary processing. But would that more expensive than constantly calling glUseProgram to switch shaders, or storing the shaders to begin with?
      With all these angles to consider, it's difficult to come to a conclusion. Both possible methods work, and both seem rather convenient for their own reasons, but which is the most performant? Please help this beginner/dummy understand. Thank you!
    • By JJCDeveloper
      I want to make professional java 3d game with server program and database,packet handling for multiplayer and client-server communicating,maps rendering,models,and stuffs Which aspect of java can I learn and where can I learn java Lwjgl OpenGL rendering Like minecraft and world of tanks
    • By AyeRonTarpas
      A friend of mine and I are making a 2D game engine as a learning experience and to hopefully build upon the experience in the long run.

      -What I'm using:
          C++;. Since im learning this language while in college and its one of the popular language to make games with why not.     Visual Studios; Im using a windows so yea.     SDL or GLFW; was thinking about SDL since i do some research on it where it is catching my interest but i hear SDL is a huge package compared to GLFW, so i may do GLFW to start with as learning since i may get overwhelmed with SDL.  
      Knowing what we want in the engine what should our main focus be in terms of learning. File managements, with headers, functions ect. How can i properly manage files with out confusing myself and my friend when sharing code. Alternative to Visual studios: My friend has a mac and cant properly use Vis studios, is there another alternative to it?  
    • By ferreiradaselva
      Both functions are available since 3.0, and I'm currently using `glMapBuffer()`, which works fine.
      But, I was wondering if anyone has experienced advantage in using `glMapBufferRange()`, which allows to specify the range of the mapped buffer. Could this be only a safety measure or does it improve performance?
      Note: I'm not asking about glBufferSubData()/glBufferData. Those two are irrelevant in this case.
    • By xhcao
      Before using void glBindImageTexture(    GLuint unit, GLuint texture, GLint level, GLboolean layered, GLint layer, GLenum access, GLenum format), does need to make sure that texture is completeness. 
  • Popular Now