• 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
pinebanana

OpenGL
How to abstract OpenGL or DirectX specific things from classes specific to rendering

17 posts in this topic

I'm not sure if this has been posted before.

 

I'm just not sure how I should abstract OpenGL or DirectX specific things from classes specific to rendering. Such as shaders, texture objects, vertex buffer objects, etc.

 

For example:

 

Let's say there is a Texture2D class, that is used to refer to textures stored on the GPU. The problem is: storing the specific GLuint (or whatever the alternative for DX is) within the Texture2D object directly, which would make my code very dependent to OpenGL. I've thought of a couple alternatives:

 

Option 1:

 

 

Store an unsigned integer inside the Texture object, (not actually the GLuint), which will resemble an index of the actual OpenGL/DX specific data. Which will most likely be present inside a TextureLoader class. Where the Renderer will have a TextureLoader, and may be accessed through a getter.

 

Here is what I mean:

 

Texture2d (this is a basic data structure)
     - width/height
     - index
Texture2dLoader (abstract)
     - loadTexture(const Image&) : Texture2d
     - destroyTexture(Texture& texture)
OglTexture2dLoader : TextureLoader
    - loadTexture(const Image&) : Texture2d // override
    - destroyTexture(Texture& texture) // override
    - vector<GLuint> textures // dynamic array, appended to when loading texture 

 

Here are the pros/cons that I've thought of from this design.

 

Pros:

  • Simple, non dependant on OpenGL or DirectX
  • Easy to make another implementation

Cons:

  • Requires manual deletion, therefore:
  • If Texture object goes out of scope, there will be no way of deleting texture manually

 

Option 2:

 

Make an abstract TextureHandler class, which will have specific OpenGL/DX in the derived class

 

Texture2dHandler (abstract)

     - virtual destructor

Texture2d (this is a basic data structure)

     - width/height

     - handler : unique_ptr<Texture2dHandler>

OglTexture2dHandler : TextureHandler

     - GLuint id

     - (destructor)

Texture2dLoader (abstract)

     - loadTexture(const Image&) : Texture2d

     - destroyTexture(Texture& texture)

OglTexture2dLoader : TextureLoader

    - loadTexture(const Image&) : Texture2d // override

    - destroyTexture(Texture& texture) // override

 

Pros:

  • Allows for RAII

Cons:

  • Handler requires to be allocated on the heap

 

The same issue is also applied to shaders, buffer objects (such as VBOs), and whatever else, and therefore this will be present all over my code. Does anyone have personal experience with this? What option should I go for?

 

This is really bugging my mind. Thanks for reading.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how my engine handles this, I haven't been able to come up with anything else that's any more flexible or simple.

 

The classes which abstract the main interface to the graphics API:

  • DeviceManager - Enumerates all available 'devices' i.e. OpenGL, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, etc
  • GraphicsDevice - implements a graphics API interface (i.e. OpenGL), creates a context for the particular device.
  • GraphicsContext - main interface which handles GPU object creation (textures, buffers, shaders, etc), as well as submitting draw calls/state changes to the API. Also handles window system interaction. I have an OpenGLContext subclass and will soon have a DirectX10Context, and later others.
    • Call context->createTexture2D( image, texture format...) and like methods for other types to create context GPU objects from generic data.
    • Call context->draw( vertex buffer, index buffer, shader program ) to draw stuff.

These interfaces provide a way to get access to an underlying API in a uniform manner. Since all APIs wrap hardware functionality for buffers, textures, and shaders, there ends up being a common set of abstractions for different hardware data types:

 

  • Texture - virtual interface for interactions with the texture system. Handles 1D, 2D, 3D, and cube textures and any other common texture parameters. Implemented by OpenGLTexture which provides the OpenGL implementation for the texture, including any API-specific data (GLint texture ID, for example).
  • HardwareBuffer - virtual interface for vertex buffers, index buffers, and constant buffers. Provides buffer memory mapping, read/write access. Implemented by OpenGLHardwareBuffer.
  • Shader -  virtual interface for shader creation. Takes source code and shader type/language (vertex/fragment, glsl/cg/hlsl), then compiles it. Implemented by OpenGLShader.
  • ShaderProgram - virtual interface for shader programs. User attaches Shader objects to the program and then link them. Allows users to access the input variables for the linked shader program. Implemented by OpenGLShaderProgram.

In practice it is a little tricky to define good interfaces for these classes, but it can be done. All of these classes are wrapped in reference-counted smart pointers.

Edited by Aressera
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Texture - virtual interface for interactions with the texture system. Handles 1D, 2D, 3D, and cube textures and any other common texture parameters. Implemented by OpenGLTexture which provides the OpenGL implementation for the texture, including any API-specific data (GLint texture ID, for example).

 

How does your Texture class handle 1D, 2D, 3D, and cube textures? Do you have multiple sub-classing?

 

And... Hm... The Hardware types seems familiar on how Ogre3D has designed them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Texture - virtual interface for interactions with the texture system. Handles 1D, 2D, 3D, and cube textures and any other common texture parameters. Implemented by OpenGLTexture which provides the OpenGL implementation for the texture, including any API-specific data (GLint texture ID, for example).

 

How does your Texture class handle 1D, 2D, 3D, and cube textures? Do you have multiple sub-classing?

 

And... Hm... The Hardware types seems familiar on how Ogre3D has designed them.

 

Here's a basic outline of the most important methods

class Texture
{
	public:
	
	virtual Size getNumberOfDimensions() const = 0;
	virtual Size getSize( Index dimensionIndex ) const = 0;
	
	// Returns 1 for most textures, 6 for cube map textures.
	virtual Size getNumberOfFaces() const = 0;
	virtual Bool isACubeMap() const = 0;

	// Gets image for face/mipmap level in output image parameter.
	virtual Bool getImage( Image& image, TextureFace face = FRONT, Index mimapLevel = 0 ) const = 0;
	
	// Replaces texture's image for the given face/mipmap.
	virtual Bool setImage( const Image& image, TextureFace face = FRONT, Index mimapLevel = 0 ) = 0;
	
	// Replaces part of the texture at the specified position/face/mipmap level.
	virtual Bool updateImage( const Image& image, const Vector3i& position, TextureFace face = FRONT, Index mimapLevel = 0 ) = 0;
};
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a good design - you're basically going too low and trying to build what looks and smells a lot like a fairly thin wrapper around each API.  The problem with that approach is that there are areas at a higher level where the APIs need to be handled differently - D3D input layouts (or vertex declarations) vs GL vertex attrib arrays, GL linked program objects vs D3D separate shaders, uniforms being part of the program object state in GL vs that not being the case in D3D, the ever-dreaded bind-to-modify in GL, different buffer update strategies, etc.  These (and others) will repeatedly trip you up with such a fairly thin wrapper, and you're going to find the abstraction leaks and bubbles up into your main program code, where you'll be having to do API-specific things as well.  That's not the point of an abstraction layer; you may as well be using the raw APIs with a bunch of #ifdefs instead.

 

If you want to abstract you should go up higher - abstract at the level of "material", "render surface", and so forth.  That way all that your main program code has to bother with is setting parameters and submitting stuff for drawing, whereas your abstraction layer can handle the API-specific parts of doing so in a way that your main code doesn't need to even know about.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to abstract you should go up higher - abstract at the level of "material", "render surface", and so forth.  That way all that your main program code has to bother with is setting parameters and submitting stuff for drawing, whereas your abstraction layer can handle the API-specific parts of doing so in a way that your main code doesn't need to even know about.

 

You're right, there have to be a couple different levels of abstraction which I omitted for simplicity. What I've described above is just that, a thin wrapper around each API's low level functionality. On top of that is built a material/mesh/object management system that might have API-specific code too, though I think it's not too hard to keep it at a minimum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to abstract you should go up higher - abstract at the level of "material", "render surface", and so forth.  That way all that your main program code has to bother with is setting parameters and submitting stuff for drawing, whereas your abstraction layer can handle the API-specific parts of doing so in a way that your main code doesn't need to even know about.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean? Could you elaborate? Or give an example.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's saying that instead of wrapping around each graphics primitive, (Textures, Render Targets, etc), you should only wrap around the high level use of those types. So if you only write a material class, then you'll simultaneously wrap around textures, shaders, texture samplers, etc, and only provide one access point for your application.

That being said, I disagree with it. I prefer to have managers around each primitive to allow for more flexibility, then build my higher level abstractions on top of that. For example, my engine will define an base ShaderManager. Then the platform will define another ShaderManager, (ShaderManagerOGL). Then I have a similar abstraction called Shader and ShaderOGL. It's responsibility is to effectively communicate with the manager. Then I have a Material and MaterialOGL class that is responsible for maintaining a ShaderOGL and to do whatever setup is necessary to use that shader. Then finally I have a RenderComponent/OGL class that is responsible for setting up materials, vertex buffers, and VAOs and so on and so forth.

My current engine support DirectX9, DirectX11, and OpenGL 2.0-3.3. I'm currently working on an OpenGL ES 2.0 port of my engine, and it still allows the flexibility I need to best leverage my platform.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been storing void* (ugh) in my texture and mesh and shader objects.

 

I have a frontend and a backend.  I supply the instance of the backend that would load a texture and now the void* points to some OpenGL specific data.  If I want to free it I go through the backend and have the backend free it.  Basically only the backend knows the format of the void* data and just typecasts the void* to that.

 

I haven't worked with DirectX yet so I'm not sure how things are stored, so I decided not to go with unsigned ints for things in case DirectX stored them completely differently.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phew, after reading what you posted, I feel like the way I did it would handle all of those cases.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t IS doable, and it is even doable with low level wrapping. But the lower level you get, the more intricate the behavioral details and implied assumptions become. More familiarity with the potential APIs (GL 2.x, GL 3.x, GL 4.x, D3D9, D3D11, D3D Xbox, PS3, etc) is needed. The advice to do the abstraction with very high level objects is a good one. It yields a fair bit of control to the underlying API and can create an annoying amount of duplicate or similar code across implementations. But it is more likely to be robust in the face of many different hardware APIs.

Hm... it seems I'm in over my head about this situation. Perhaps instead of thinking too much about it, I'll just do it and see with experience the limitations about the design I will use.

 

 

 

For example:

 

Let's say there is a Texture2D class, that is used to refer to textures stored on the GPU. The problem is: storing the specific GLuint (or whatever the alternative for DX is) within the Texture2D object directly, which would make my code very dependent to OpenGL.

RED ALERT.

 

The very first step to abstracting across APIs is being familiar with several of them. You apparently are not. The very first step to writing abstract code is understanding what is being abstracted and at what layer the abstraction needs to exist. It also requires some perspective on common functionality within the APIs and from the point of view of the client code. Reusability and abstraction DO NOT exist in a vacuum and you can't simply make them up based on some general ideas of what constitutes an API's objects.

 

More generally speaking, creating an abstracted layer that can do D3D or OGL internally isn't about papering over whether it's a GLuint or an IDirect3DTexture* underneath. Those things are trivial, stupid issues. Some judicious use of the preprocessor and API specific files will solve those issues. No, the hard part in creating these abstractions is behavior and implied assumptions. There is a lot of devil in the details type stuff that can take some careful stepping to navigate. Simple example: OpenGL has the vertex array object (VAO), which encapsulates a client state (enabled attrib bits and bound VBOs). You'll have one per object, more or less. That doesn't exist in D3D 9. Instead there is a separate set of stream sources, and a vertex declaration which is typically shared heavily. It can get messier if you want to handle constant buffer APIs (D3D 11, GL 4.2). Render states are handled differently in GL than D3D9 than D3D11. And a nasty one for OpenGL based engines: D3D requires everything to be funneled through a device pointer, which is not necessary in GL. If your GL abstraction assumes it can change pipeline states without an external reference, you'll wind up patching in globals to support D3D. And this is all just a small slice.

 

 I don't know a lot D3D, but I assumed (from what I heard) that the concepts are very similar to OpenGL. i.e. Texture objects for DX. I did know about the D3D device, which I could easily just pass to if I create a renderer, could I not?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a high level, sure there are a lot of similarities. In practice they are vastly different implementations. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both possess texture objects for sure, but there are two major differences and a third more subtle difference.

 

First major difference is that D3D has no equivalent whatsoever to the glActiveTexture call.  In GL you select a currently active texture unit and all subsequent GL calls that affect texture state will affect the state for that unit.  This model doesn't exist at all in D3D - instead the texture stage to be affected is passed as a parameter to all texture state calls.

 

Second one is that GL has texture binding points - GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_3D, etc.  Each texture unit has a full set of binding points and multiple textures can be bound to a single texture unit by binding one to each binding point.  Again, state changes must specify the binding point to be affected.  D3D doesn't have these binding points at all; it's one texture stage, one texture.

 

The more subtle one is that if you want to create or subsequently modify a texture in GL you must glBindTexture it first.  glTexImage/glTexSubImage calls only affect the currently bound texture.  D3D doesn't have this requirement - instead you operate directly on the texture object itself without needing a SetTexture call before doing so.  State changes for drawing are going to affect modification/creation and vice-versa in GL but not in D3D.  (This also applies to buffer objects in GL vs D3D too).

 

So by going to too low a level, these API difference are all things that your program is going to have to be aware of, which means that the abstraction bubbles up into your main program code.  This kind of difference exists throughout the two APIs - you'll have similar problems with shaders and shader uniforms, for example, and again the abstraction will bubble up to your main program code.  So your main program code will end up having to be aware of which API it's using, what it can and cannot do in each, what the differences are for handling objects, etc.  At that point you've no longer got an abstraction, you've got a set of thin wrappers with your main program code doing all the heavy work.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that actually looks pretty awesome.  I'll have to take a good look at that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does your Texture class handle 1D, 2D, 3D, and cube textures? Do you have multiple sub-classing?

 

For this, what I've done is create an enumeration for the texture types, arguments, filters, ect that I want to support.  Then, in each API-specific texture class, I define an array of values which map to my custom enumeration, and put -1 where the value is unsupported.  It seems to work pretty well for me at the moment.  

For instance, for texture type I would have an enum:

enum TextureType
{
  TextureType1D,
  TextureType2D,
  TextureType3D
}

 

 

Then my mapping for OpenGL would be

 

static const int GLTextureType[3] = 
{
  GL_TEXTURE_1D,
  GL_TEXTURE_2D,
  -1 // 3D Textures are not supported
}
Edited by metsfan
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 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 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
  • Popular Now