• 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
Tommato

OpenGL
VBO slow

7 posts in this topic

Hi All
 
I've implemented VBO but got a slower render (only 1 fps vs 3 fps without VBO).
After series of experiments I've found the problem is caused by using GL_DOUBLE for at least one chunk (vertices, normals, UVs etc). With GL_FLOAT for everything my results are good: 17 fps with VBO. So my questions are:
 
- is a low speed normal/expected with GL_DOUBLE ?
- how can I make VBO faster yet?
 
My setings are:
 
OpenGL Vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
OpenGL Renderer: ATI Radeon HD 2600 OpenGL Engine
OpenGL Version: 2.1 ATI-1.6.36
 
Vertices 756,780
Polygons 1,169,235
Objects 150
VBO buffers: 150 * 2 = 300 
(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB + GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER_ARB) both GL_STATIC_DRAW_ARB
Using glDrawElements
Shading: gourand
Total VBO RAM: 42,513.104
 
Thanks
Tom
Edited by Tommato
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK usually you would use floats and not doubles on the GPU

 

Thats a lot of triangles and your GPU doesnt seem that powerful, so i would say your usage of VBO's isnt the problem, simply the amount of work youre trying to do.

 

Assuming your shader isnt full of ifs, what you should do is reduce the amount of triangles you draw. Dont draw objects outside the screen, draw far away stuff with lower detail (LoD)...

Edited by Waterlimon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have the GL_ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit extension available you can safely assume that any GLdouble vertex input is going to be software emulated - in immediate mode by casting your glVertex3d parameters down to float, with VBOs by potentially running your entire per-vertex pipeline in software.  Obviously that would result in VBOs being somewhat slower than immediate mode code, which is exactly what you've observed.

 

Double-precision support in hardware is still relatively new (requiring SM5 hardware IIRC), and the moral of the story is that even if the GL spec allows it for a particular call, don't always assume that it means your hardware supports it (especially if it's from an older part of GL that pre-dates hardware T&L).

 

How can you go faster still?  If you're not already doing it, then consider interleaving your vertex struct.  I.e. instead of:

 

GLfloat positions[ARBITRARY_NUMBER];
GLfloat normals[ARBITRARY_NUMBER];
GLfloat texcoords[ARBITRARY_NUMBER];

 

Use:

 

struct myVertex
{
    GLfloat position[3];
    GLfloat normal[3];
    GLfloat texcoord[2];
};

myVertex vertices[ARBITRARY_NUMBER];

 

This can be a win as it means that your GPU can now read all data for each vertex together, and without having to do any random jumping around in memory.

 

Another thing you can do, since you have an older GPU that only supports GL2.1, is to use GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT instead of GL_UNSIGNED_INT for your GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, if you can get away with it.  This is also coming back to the "don't always assume that hardware supports what the GL spec allows" point, and a GPU that old may not support 32-bit indices very well (or at all!)

 

Finally, and to cut down on buffer changes, you could consider packing all objects into a single VBO (rather than 150 * 2 separate VBOs) and using the parameters to your glDrawArrays/glDrawElements calls (or the offsets specified by your gl*Pointer calls) to select which object gets drawn.  This may or may not be compatible with using 16-bit indices however, so you'll need to profile both approaches and see which works best for you.

Edited by mhagain
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can safely assume that any GLdouble vertex input is going to be software emulated . . . with VBOs by potentially running your entire per-vertex pipeline in software

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it was my understanding that when transferring a static VBO from the client to the GPU, the actual data is copied over--so any doubles ought to have been already converted to floats in this case as well?

In the face of this, I might suspect something else may be afoot; for example, are you sure you're using VBOs, or are you using vertex arrays accidentally instead?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it was my understanding that when transferring a static VBO from the client to the GPU, the actual data is copied over--so any doubles ought to have been already converted to floats in this case as well?

 

The data type is only specified at the gl*Pointer stage, by which point the VBO has already long been copied over.  glBufferData itself is totally type agnostic; it doesn't care whether you've floats, doubles, plain text or even a JPEG in there - it just transfers a block of memory to the buffer object.  gl*Pointer is what defines how that memory is interpreted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have the GL_ARB_vertex_attrib_64bit extension available you can safely assume that any GLdouble vertex input is going to be software emulated -

Thanks for your complete answer, clear now

 

Thanks all for your replies. The spedup to 17 fps (from inital 3-4) is a real progress for my app, but how good it is for VBO? Just some articles promises huge speedups like in 100 or more times (although IMO it's out of common sense). In other words should I apply more efforts to achieve better performance or it's already acceptable enough? Note: with GL_DYNAMIC_DRAW_ARB I've 14-15 fps (instead of 17 with static)

 

Thanks

Tom

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advantage of a VBO is basically just that the data can be put in there and uploaded once and then used multiple times for drawing(thats what static draw is hinting at). If someone does not follow this pattern and changes the data every frame and then immediately draws from it there is not much to gain for him compared to a vertex array(there you are supposed to give dynamic draw hint though it depends on the driver how/if that makes a difference).

I very much doubt a 100 times speedup even if those people only specified single vertices in immediate mode.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how 100x could be achievable.  First of all the program has to be completely vertex-bound, let's say drawing millions of points with each individual point being in it's own glBegin/glEnd pair.  Then, it needs to be doing virtually nothing else on the GPU - so all of those points are offscreen.  Switch that to using a VBO and a single draw call, and you'll see huge performance increases of that magnitude.

 

For more realistic real-world programs that people actually write you're not going to see increases like that at all.

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 Toastmastern
      So it's been a while since I took a break from my whole creating a planet in DX11. Last time around I got stuck on fixing a nice LOD.
      A week back or so I got help to find this:
      https://github.com/sp4cerat/Planet-LOD
      In general this is what I'm trying to recreate in DX11, he that made that planet LOD uses OpenGL but that is a minor issue and something I can solve. But I have a question regarding the code
      He gets the position using this row
      vec4d pos = b.var.vec4d["position"]; Which is then used further down when he sends the variable "center" into the drawing function:
      if (pos.len() < 1) pos.norm(); world::draw(vec3d(pos.x, pos.y, pos.z));  
      Inside the draw function this happens:
      draw_recursive(p3[0], p3[1], p3[2], center); Basically the 3 vertices of the triangle and the center of details that he sent as a parameter earlier: vec3d(pos.x, pos.y, pos.z)
      Now onto my real question, he does vec3d edge_center[3] = { (p1 + p2) / 2, (p2 + p3) / 2, (p3 + p1) / 2 }; to get the edge center of each edge, nothing weird there.
      But this is used later on with:
      vec3d d = center + edge_center[i]; edge_test[i] = d.len() > ratio_size; edge_test is then used to evaluate if there should be a triangle drawn or if it should be split up into 3 new triangles instead. Why is it working for him? shouldn't it be like center - edge_center or something like that? Why adding them togheter? I asume here that the center is the center of details for the LOD. the position of the camera if stood on the ground of the planet and not up int he air like it is now.

      Full code can be seen here:
      https://github.com/sp4cerat/Planet-LOD/blob/master/src.simple/Main.cpp
      If anyone would like to take a look and try to help me understand this code I would love this person. I'm running out of ideas on how to solve this in my own head, most likely twisted it one time to many up in my head
      Thanks in advance
      Toastmastern
       
       
    • By fllwr0491
      I googled around but are unable to find source code or details of implementation.
      What keywords should I search for this topic?
      Things I would like to know:
      A. How to ensure that partially covered pixels are rasterized?
         Apparently by expanding each triangle by 1 pixel or so, rasterization problem is almost solved.
         But it will result in an unindexable triangle list without tons of overlaps. Will it incur a large performance penalty?
      B. A-buffer like bitmask needs a read-modiry-write operation.
         How to ensure proper synchronizations in GLSL?
         GLSL seems to only allow int32 atomics on image.
      C. Is there some simple ways to estimate coverage on-the-fly?
         In case I am to draw 2D shapes onto an exisitng target:
         1. A multi-pass whatever-buffer seems overkill.
         2. Multisampling could cost a lot memory though all I need is better coverage.
            Besides, I have to blit twice, if draw target is not multisampled.
       
    • 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));  
  • Popular Now