• 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
jmakitalo

OpenGL
Summary of best VBO practices

4 posts in this topic

I have read several articles about using VBO:s and VAO:s on today's hardware, but due to mixed information, I'm not sure what the bottom line is. For example http://www.opengl.org/wiki/VBO_-_more is instructive, but I feel that someone could have second opinions on these matters.

 

In my game, I usually have models with approximately 300-1000 polygons and 1-3 textures. Each model also has a few lower detail versions of them, which don't use the same vertex data, but usually do use the same textures. Additionally, some models (e.g. player) can have 20k polygons and maybe 5 textures.

 

In my current implementation, a mesh is divided into groups by texture. Each group has VBO:s for vertex positions, normals, texture coordinates etc. (each has its own VBO) and then an index buffer. After culling, I have a bunch of mesh groups, which I then first sort by texture and then by VBO and draw by glDrawElements. The vertex data is always static and all animating is done in shaders.

 

A few questions:

 

1)

If a group has, say 4000 polygons (which could happen for the player models), is it advisable to call glDrawElements once for the whole chunk, or should I cut it into pieces? I read about some "cache pressure" kicking in with large chunks, but I don't understand what it means. I have experienced some hick ups with 20k models, but just dividing the draw calls didn't seem to help.

 

2)

Should I put all vertex data to a single VBO? For each group or the whole mesh? I read that 1 - 4 MiB buffer is preferred on some hardware, so should I go further and implement some sort of general VBO allocator, so that the data of several meshes are pushed there? For 4 MiB VBO and 1000 polygon meshes, I can see how this would reduce bindings, if all meshes use the same types of attributes.

 

3)

Should I use interleaved arrays? I remember that there has been some controversy with this issue. Probably depends on local coherence of vertex / index data.

 

4)

Any other considerations?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Should I put all vertex data to a single VBO?"

Whereever possible, yes. It means the whole vertex will be pulled into a cache at the same time. By having multiple VBOs, you're using multiple memory units which means multiple caches need to be loaded. Each will contain the vertex data for more vertices, but that's not necessarily useful; if you use the coords for a vertex, you'll use the normal data and probably quite soon, so the memory effort in loading it is useful.

If you have multiple memory units loading many verts into their cache, their effort may well be wasted -- touching vertex V implies nothing about when or even whether you will need the data for vertex V+1.

"If a group has, say 4000 polygons (which could happen for the player models), is it advisable to call glDrawElements once for the whole chunk, or should I cut it into pieces?"

Do the whole thing. Reason; let the driver do the optimisation work. It knows what shape the hardware is, and you don't. Don't try and second guess it unless you have a known crap driver you're trying to work round. Some drivers, for example, may take the min/max vert index and transform everything in that range and then bin the unused values. If you unchunk the data, they'll obviously waste more time on unused nodes. For the same sorts of reasons, try and make sure all the verts in a chunk are adjacent in your VBO.

You're also likely to transform verticies on the split boundaries more than once, whereas as one draw, they'll likely only be done once.
Ok, thanks for your insight. And I guess that interleaving is useful, if all attributes are used, but maybe not so if only e.g. position data is used (like for shadowmaps).

I'm thinking of writing a VBO manager that is passed to mesh classes and such to unify vertex data management. I was thinking of writing two classes: CVertexArrayObject to store one vbo for attributes, a vertex array object and one index buffer, and CVertexArrayManager, which would create new vertex arrays whenever a buffer size exceeds some threshold. Something like
class CVertexArrayObject
{
private:
  GLuint vaoID;
  GLuint vboID;
  GLuint indexID;
// ...
};

class CVertexArrayManager
{
private:
  std::vector<CVertexArrayObject*> objects;

  // ...

public:
  CVertexArrayManager();
  ~CVertexArrayManager();

  // Maximum buffer sizes.
  void setVertexBufferSize(int _vbSize);
  void setIndexBufferSize(int _ibSize);

  // Request new buffer, which is identified by index to object
  // and offset within the buffer of the object.
  bool allocateVertexBuffer(int size, int &objectIndex, int &offset);
  bool allocateIndexBuffer(int size, int &objectIndex, int &offset);

  // Bind object for rendering (vertex attribute buffers and index buffer).
  void bindObject(int objectIndex);

  // Write index data to allocated buffer.
  void fillIndexBuffer(int objectIndex, int offset, GLushort *indices, int nindices);

  // Write vertex data to allocated buffer.
  // Data is a struct array containing interleaved data.
  template <class T>
  void fillVertexBuffer(int objectIndex, int offset, const T *data, int size);
};

An instance of the manager would then be passed to a mesh class, which would fill the buffers with its data. What do you think? Edited by jmakitalo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, thanks for your insight. And I guess that interleaving is useful, if all attributes are used, but maybe not so if only e.g. position data is used (like for shadowmaps).

 

Interleaving may still be useful even then.  It may mean that you get to reuse the same VBO (and potentially even the same vertex shader) for your shadowmapping pass as you use for your regular passes, which may be a win, but it all depends on the architecture of your renderer.  True, there will be attributes unused during that pass, but the benefit from not having to switch buffers, or not having to use a slower path for your main render, may well outweigh the cost of having some extra attribs for a shadowmapping pass.

 

It may also give you a benefit in code cleanliness which - even if it does turn out slower - you may well feel is worthwhile.

 

Katie made the point that you shouldn't try to second-guess the driver, and this is so true.  When you're writing this kind of code you are no longer in the software-only realm, and things that you think may make sense to do might actually turn out to be the worst possible choice.  That, to me, is the single most important point here - if you're of a mindset that "doing X is better because it saves memory", etc, you need to shake that mindset off quite quickly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='mhagain' timestamp='1358730031' post='5023701']
Katie made the point that you shouldn't try to second-guess the driver, and this is so true. When you're writing this kind of code you are no longer in the software-only realm, and things that you think may make sense to do might actually turn out to be the worst possible choice. That, to me, is the single most important point here - if you're of a mindset that "doing X is better because it saves memory", etc, you need to shake that mindset off quite quickly.
[/quote]

 

Yes, this sounds probable. Although it seems to me that the best way to go in this sort of things tends to change over time.

 

I also read that calling glVertexAttribPointer is very expensive. I would guess that if I can squeeze about 100 meshes into a single VBO, it would make sense to first sort by VBO and then by texture, although texture binds are also expensive. Having only a few large VBO:s is also probably good from the point of view of LOD. If each mesh would have its own VBO, then adding levels of detail would increase the number of buffer binds, which could diminish the benefit of having LOD in the first place.

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 mapra99
      Hello

      I am working on a recent project and I have been learning how to code in C# using OpenGL libraries for some graphics. I have achieved some quite interesting things using TAO Framework writing in Console Applications, creating a GLUT Window. But my problem now is that I need to incorporate the Graphics in a Windows Form so I can relate the objects that I render with some .NET Controls.

      To deal with this problem, I have seen in some forums that it's better to use OpenTK instead of TAO Framework, so I can use the glControl that OpenTK libraries offer. However, I haven't found complete articles, tutorials or source codes that help using the glControl or that may insert me into de OpenTK functions. Would somebody please share in this forum some links or files where I can find good documentation about this topic? Or may I use another library different of OpenTK?

      Thanks!
    • 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 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