• 9
• 16
• 15
• 12
• 9
• ### Similar Content

• By Elwin
So I've started in learning OpenGL , then I found the NeHe website and its Legacy Tutorials  (here is the link  http://nehe.gamedev.net/tutorial/lessons_01__05/22004/ ).But the problem is that I can't download any   examples of code ( neither C code examples nor any other language ) .As you see it is impossible to download http://nehe.gamedev5.net/data/lessons/pelles_c/lesson01.zip . Does anyone has expamles of C code of this lessons ?  And the second question. If I prefer coding on C , should I choose GLUT but not an OpenGL ?
• By elect
Hi,
ok, so, we are having problems with our current mirror reflection implementation.
At the moment we are doing it very simple, so for the i-th frame, we calculate the reflection vectors given the viewPoint and some predefined points on the mirror surface (position and normal).
Then, using the least squared algorithm, we find the point that has the minimum distance from all these reflections vectors. This is going to be our virtual viewPoint (with the right orientation).
After that, we render offscreen to a texture by setting the OpenGL camera on the virtual viewPoint.
And finally we use the rendered texture on the mirror surface.
So far this has always been fine, but now we are having some more strong constraints on accuracy.
What are our best options given that:
- we have a dynamic scene, the mirror and parts of the scene can change continuously from frame to frame
- we have about 3k points (with normals) per mirror, calculated offline using some cad program (such as Catia)
- all the mirror are always perfectly spherical (with different radius vertically and horizontally) and they are always convex
- a scene can have up to 10 mirror
- it should be fast enough also for vr (Htc Vive) on fastest gpus (only desktops)

Looking around, some papers talk about calculating some caustic surface derivation offline, but I don't know if this suits my case
Also, another paper, used some acceleration structures to detect the intersection between the reflection vectors and the scene, and then adjust the corresponding texture coordinate. This looks the most accurate but also very heavy from a computational point of view.

Other than that, I couldn't find anything updated/exhaustive around, can you help me?

• Hello all,
I am currently working on a game engine for use with my game development that I would like to be as flexible as possible.  As such the exact requirements for how things should work can't be nailed down to a specific implementation and I am looking for, at least now, a default good average case scenario design.
Here is what I have implemented:
Deferred rendering using OpenGL Arbitrary number of lights and shadow mapping Each rendered object, as defined by a set of geometry, textures, animation data, and a model matrix is rendered with its own draw call Skeletal animations implemented on the GPU.   Model matrix transformation implemented on the GPU Frustum and octree culling for optimization Here are my questions and concerns:
Doing the skeletal animation on the GPU, currently, requires doing the skinning for each object multiple times per frame: once for the initial geometry rendering and once for the shadow map rendering for each light for which it is not culled.  This seems very inefficient.  Is there a way to do skeletal animation on the GPU only once across these render calls? Without doing the model matrix transformation on the CPU, I fail to see how I can easily batch objects with the same textures and shaders in a single draw call without passing a ton of matrix data to the GPU (an array of model matrices then an index for each vertex into that array for transformation purposes?) If I do the matrix transformations on the CPU, It seems I can't really do the skinning on the GPU as the pre-transformed vertexes will wreck havoc with the calculations, so this seems not viable unless I am missing something Overall it seems like simplest solution is to just do all of the vertex manipulation on the CPU and pass the pre-transformed data to the GPU, using vertex shaders that do basically nothing.  This doesn't seem the most efficient use of the graphics hardware, but could potentially reduce the number of draw calls needed.

Really, I am looking for some advice on how to proceed with this, how something like this is typically handled.  Are the multiple draw calls and skinning calculations not a huge deal?  I would LIKE to save as much of the CPU's time per frame so it can be tasked with other things, as to keep CPU resources open to the implementation of the engine.  However, that becomes a moot point if the GPU becomes a bottleneck.

• Hello!
I would like to introduce Diligent Engine, a project that I've been recently working on. Diligent Engine is a light-weight cross-platform abstraction layer between the application and the platform-specific graphics API. Its main goal is to take advantages of the next-generation APIs such as Direct3D12 and Vulkan, but at the same time provide support for older platforms via Direct3D11, OpenGL and OpenGLES. Diligent Engine exposes common front-end for all supported platforms and provides interoperability with underlying native API. Shader source code converter allows shaders authored in HLSL to be translated to GLSL and used on all platforms. Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity and is designed to be used as a graphics subsystem in a standalone game engine, Unity native plugin or any other 3D application. It is distributed under Apache 2.0 license and is free to use. Full source code is available for download on GitHub.
Features:
True cross-platform Exact same client code for all supported platforms and rendering backends No #if defined(_WIN32) ... #elif defined(LINUX) ... #elif defined(ANDROID) ... No #if defined(D3D11) ... #elif defined(D3D12) ... #elif defined(OPENGL) ... Exact same HLSL shaders run on all platforms and all backends Modular design Components are clearly separated logically and physically and can be used as needed Only take what you need for your project (do not want to keep samples and tutorials in your codebase? Simply remove Samples submodule. Only need core functionality? Use only Core submodule) No 15000 lines-of-code files Clear object-based interface No global states Key graphics features: Automatic shader resource binding designed to leverage the next-generation rendering APIs Multithreaded command buffer generation 50,000 draw calls at 300 fps with D3D12 backend Descriptor, memory and resource state management Modern c++ features to make code fast and reliable The following platforms and low-level APIs are currently supported:
Windows Desktop: Direct3D11, Direct3D12, OpenGL Universal Windows: Direct3D11, Direct3D12 Linux: OpenGL Android: OpenGLES MacOS: OpenGL iOS: OpenGLES API Basics
Initialization
The engine can perform initialization of the API or attach to already existing D3D11/D3D12 device or OpenGL/GLES context. For instance, the following code shows how the engine can be initialized in D3D12 mode:
#include "RenderDeviceFactoryD3D12.h" using namespace Diligent; // ...  GetEngineFactoryD3D12Type GetEngineFactoryD3D12 = nullptr; // Load the dll and import GetEngineFactoryD3D12() function LoadGraphicsEngineD3D12(GetEngineFactoryD3D12); auto *pFactoryD3D11 = GetEngineFactoryD3D12(); EngineD3D12Attribs EngD3D12Attribs; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[0] = 1024; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[1] = 32; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[2] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[3] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.NumCommandsToFlushCmdList = 64; RefCntAutoPtr<IRenderDevice> pRenderDevice; RefCntAutoPtr<IDeviceContext> pImmediateContext; SwapChainDesc SwapChainDesc; RefCntAutoPtr<ISwapChain> pSwapChain; pFactoryD3D11->CreateDeviceAndContextsD3D12( EngD3D12Attribs, &pRenderDevice, &pImmediateContext, 0 ); pFactoryD3D11->CreateSwapChainD3D12( pRenderDevice, pImmediateContext, SwapChainDesc, hWnd, &pSwapChain ); Creating Resources
Device resources are created by the render device. The two main resource types are buffers, which represent linear memory, and textures, which use memory layouts optimized for fast filtering. To create a buffer, you need to populate BufferDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateBuffer(). The following code creates a uniform (constant) buffer:
BufferDesc BuffDesc; BufferDesc.Name = "Uniform buffer"; BuffDesc.BindFlags = BIND_UNIFORM_BUFFER; BuffDesc.Usage = USAGE_DYNAMIC; BuffDesc.uiSizeInBytes = sizeof(ShaderConstants); BuffDesc.CPUAccessFlags = CPU_ACCESS_WRITE; m_pDevice->CreateBuffer( BuffDesc, BufferData(), &m_pConstantBuffer ); Similar, to create a texture, populate TextureDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateTexture() as in the following example:
TextureDesc TexDesc; TexDesc.Name = "My texture 2D"; TexDesc.Type = TEXTURE_TYPE_2D; TexDesc.Width = 1024; TexDesc.Height = 1024; TexDesc.Format = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM; TexDesc.Usage = USAGE_DEFAULT; TexDesc.BindFlags = BIND_SHADER_RESOURCE | BIND_RENDER_TARGET | BIND_UNORDERED_ACCESS; TexDesc.Name = "Sample 2D Texture"; m_pRenderDevice->CreateTexture( TexDesc, TextureData(), &m_pTestTex ); Initializing Pipeline State
Diligent Engine follows Direct3D12 style to configure the graphics/compute pipeline. One big Pipelines State Object (PSO) encompasses all required states (all shader stages, input layout description, depth stencil, rasterizer and blend state descriptions etc.)
To create a shader, populate ShaderCreationAttribs structure. An important member is ShaderCreationAttribs::SourceLanguage. The following are valid values for this member:
SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_DEFAULT  - The shader source format matches the underlying graphics API: HLSL for D3D11 or D3D12 mode, and GLSL for OpenGL and OpenGLES modes. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_HLSL  - The shader source is in HLSL. For OpenGL and OpenGLES modes, the source code will be converted to GLSL. See shader converter for details. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_GLSL  - The shader source is in GLSL. There is currently no GLSL to HLSL converter. To allow grouping of resources based on the frequency of expected change, Diligent Engine introduces classification of shader variables:
Static variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_STATIC) are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. Mutable variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_MUTABLE) define resources that are expected to change on a per-material frequency. Examples may include diffuse textures, normal maps etc. Dynamic variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_DYNAMIC) are expected to change frequently and randomly. This post describes the resource binding model in Diligent Engine.
The following is an example of shader initialization:
To create a pipeline state object, define instance of PipelineStateDesc structure. The structure defines the pipeline specifics such as if the pipeline is a compute pipeline, number and format of render targets as well as depth-stencil format:
// This is a graphics pipeline PSODesc.IsComputePipeline = false; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.NumRenderTargets = 1; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RTVFormats[0] = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM_SRGB; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.DSVFormat = TEX_FORMAT_D32_FLOAT; The structure also defines depth-stencil, rasterizer, blend state, input layout and other parameters. For instance, rasterizer state can be defined as in the code snippet below:
// Init rasterizer state RasterizerStateDesc &RasterizerDesc = PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RasterizerDesc; RasterizerDesc.FillMode = FILL_MODE_SOLID; RasterizerDesc.CullMode = CULL_MODE_NONE; RasterizerDesc.FrontCounterClockwise = True; RasterizerDesc.ScissorEnable = True; //RSDesc.MultisampleEnable = false; // do not allow msaa (fonts would be degraded) RasterizerDesc.AntialiasedLineEnable = False; When all fields are populated, call IRenderDevice::CreatePipelineState() to create the PSO:
Shader resource binding in Diligent Engine is based on grouping variables in 3 different groups (static, mutable and dynamic). Static variables are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. They are bound directly to the shader object:

m_pPSO->CreateShaderResourceBinding(&m_pSRB); Dynamic and mutable resources are then bound through SRB object:
m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "tex2DDiffuse")->Set(pDiffuseTexSRV); m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "cbRandomAttribs")->Set(pRandomAttrsCB); The difference between mutable and dynamic resources is that mutable ones can only be set once for every instance of a shader resource binding. Dynamic resources can be set multiple times. It is important to properly set the variable type as this may affect performance. Static variables are generally most efficient, followed by mutable. Dynamic variables are most expensive from performance point of view. This post explains shader resource binding in more details.
Setting the Pipeline State and Invoking Draw Command
Before any draw command can be invoked, all required vertex and index buffers as well as the pipeline state should be bound to the device context:
// Clear render target const float zero[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0}; m_pContext->ClearRenderTarget(nullptr, zero); // Set vertex and index buffers IBuffer *buffer[] = {m_pVertexBuffer}; Uint32 offsets[] = {0}; Uint32 strides[] = {sizeof(MyVertex)}; m_pContext->SetVertexBuffers(0, 1, buffer, strides, offsets, SET_VERTEX_BUFFERS_FLAG_RESET); m_pContext->SetIndexBuffer(m_pIndexBuffer, 0); m_pContext->SetPipelineState(m_pPSO); Also, all shader resources must be committed to the device context:
m_pContext->CommitShaderResources(m_pSRB, COMMIT_SHADER_RESOURCES_FLAG_TRANSITION_RESOURCES); When all required states and resources are bound, IDeviceContext::Draw() can be used to execute draw command or IDeviceContext::DispatchCompute() can be used to execute compute command. Note that for a draw command, graphics pipeline must be bound, and for dispatch command, compute pipeline must be bound. Draw() takes DrawAttribs structure as an argument. The structure members define all attributes required to perform the command (primitive topology, number of vertices or indices, if draw call is indexed or not, if draw call is instanced or not, if draw call is indirect or not, etc.). For example:
DrawAttribs attrs; attrs.IsIndexed = true; attrs.IndexType = VT_UINT16; attrs.NumIndices = 36; attrs.Topology = PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_LIST; pContext->Draw(attrs); Tutorials and Samples
The GitHub repository contains a number of tutorials and sample applications that demonstrate the API usage.

AntTweakBar sample demonstrates how to use AntTweakBar library to create simple user interface.

Atmospheric scattering sample is a more advanced example. It demonstrates how Diligent Engine can be used to implement various rendering tasks: loading textures from files, using complex shaders, rendering to textures, using compute shaders and unordered access views, etc.

The repository includes Asteroids performance benchmark based on this demo developed by Intel. It renders 50,000 unique textured asteroids and lets compare performance of D3D11 and D3D12 implementations. Every asteroid is a combination of one of 1000 unique meshes and one of 10 unique textures.

Integration with Unity
Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity through Unity low-level native plugin interface. The engine relies on Native API Interoperability to attach to the graphics API initialized by Unity. After Diligent Engine device and context are created, they can be used us usual to create resources and issue rendering commands. GhostCubePlugin shows an example how Diligent Engine can be used to render a ghost cube only visible as a reflection in a mirror.

• By Yxjmir
I'm trying to load data from a .gltf file into a struct to use to load a .bin file. I don't think there is a problem with how the vertex positions are loaded, but with the indices. This is what I get when drawing with glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, ...):

Also, using glDrawElements gives a similar result. Since it looks like its drawing triangles using the wrong vertices for each face, I'm assuming it needs an index buffer/element buffer. (I'm not sure why there is a line going through part of it, it doesn't look like it belongs to a side, re-exported it without texture coordinates checked, and its not there)
I'm using jsoncpp to load the GLTF file, its format is based on JSON. Here is the gltf struct I'm using, and how I parse the file:
glBindVertexArray(g_pGame->m_VAO);
glDrawElements(GL_LINES, g_pGame->m_indices.size(), GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, (void*)0); // Only shows with GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE
glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, 0, g_pGame->m_vertexCount);
So, I'm asking what type should I use for the indices? it doesn't seem to be unsigned short, which is what I selected with the Khronos Group Exporter for blender. Also, am I reading part or all of the .bin file wrong?
Test.gltf
Test.bin

# OpenGL Summary of best VBO practices

This topic is 1889 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

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?

##### 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.

##### 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

##### 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.

##### 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.