• 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
NathanRidley

OpenGL
Abstracting away DirectX, OpenGL, etc.

10 posts in this topic

I'm a bit torn. I'm just learning graphics programming, but I want to make sure I use good practices as I go. Typically, when writing a web/business application I would separate the presentation layer from the business layer (typical 3-tier design) and ensure that the different layers are loosely coupled, with a proper separation of concerns between the different components and so forth. That is all old-hat to me, but game programming is new, so I'm trying to work out what might be different than how I'd normally approach things, due to performance concerns and other game-specific problem areas.

 

In my case, I'm using SharpDX, which exposes DirectX via a managed wrapper, and it provides a bunch of really useful classes, such as SharpDX.Vector3, which has a whole lot of handy utility methods, mainly for performing various types of transforms.

 

Despite its usefulness, I feel like I should not use this in my game because it will force me to reference SharpDX which will sting me if I decide to swap in OpenGL for rendering. Or am I thinking too low-level, and really I should be wrapping the actual vertex structures I use as well so that anything dealing directly with a vertex is more of a rendering engine detail?

 

Any tips, advice, pointers to good articles, etc, would be appreciated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important at this stage to decide if supporting OpenGL in the future is something you actually want to do.

 

A lot of people start out with the idea of supporting OpenGL (or DirectX if they start out with OpenGL) at a later point in time in their rendering engines; this results in them trying to write an abstraction layer on top of their original graphics API which doesn't really do the underlying API any justice.

 

Designing a proper wrapper exposing the functionalities of both APIs to their fullest extent is HARD. It's going to require a complete understanding of both APIs, their designs and their quirks. Add to this that you'll have to design a system which will unify these sometimes completely different beasts into a single API without introducing too much overhead and without sacrificing functionality.

 

If you really do want to support both you could always check out some third party utility libraries for doing vector math and such, I'm sure there'll be plenty of those out there.

 

If support for multiple rendering APIs isn't an absolute must I just wouldn't worry about it and work with the tools provided by SharpDX; no need to put a lot of effort into something which eventually won't have that much of an impact on your end result (ie. your game)

 

Thanks for the advice, and I think you're right. Back when I was learning to program, I often made the mistake of trying to abstract away too many things without having a proper understanding of the APIs and frameworks with which I was dealing, which usually led to a very poor abstraction and the inferior reinvention of multiple different wheels that already existed. The Windows market is plenty big enough that I should be happy to service that market for my first few games while learning. I can worry about engine abstraction at a later date when I have some decent experience writing games.

 

 


I'm just learning graphics programming...

Not to discourage you, but don't worry about abstraction if you are just a beginner. You'll proabably change your design a couple of times even if you're focusing on only one API.

As your graphics understanding improves, so will your design and code quality. 

 

 

Thanks, and I agree. I'm going to stick with SharpDX and Windows exclusively for now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi. Professional game developer with ten years experience here. I totally agree with the previous posters who say that trying to write a good quality abstraction layer between opengl and directx will be an uphill battle and probably not the best use of your time.

Having said that, in your original posting, you mentioned that you were finding the vector math packages of sharpDX handy. Even though you have made the decision not to use an abstraction layer for graphics, that does not mean that you need to tie the non-rendering parts (e.g. your AI code) of the game to SharpDX's math library. While writing your own rendering abstraction layer might be a formidable challenge, writing your own vector math routines is not that hard, or you could probably find some good ones that are not tied to a particular rendering engine. If you avoid tying your entire game to directX math libraries then it would mean that if you do decide to port it to another platform you can just replace your rendering code and the rest of your code will not need to be gutted, everywhere that it uses math routines.

On the other hand it might be the case that the sharpdx math library is separate enough from the rest of sharpdx that it would be possible to use it alongside some other rendering library based on opengl. I'm not familiar enough with sharpdx to know if that's the case, but if the math stuff is a separate DLL then that would be a good sign
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Professional game developer with ten years experience here. I totally agree with the previous posters who say that trying to write a good quality abstraction layer between opengl and directx will be an uphill battle and probably not the best use of your time.

Having said that, in your original posting, you mentioned that you were finding the vector math packages of sharpDX handy. Even though you have made the decision not to use an abstraction layer for graphics, that does not mean that you need to tie the non-rendering parts (e.g. your AI code) of the game to SharpDX's math library. While writing your own rendering abstraction layer might be a formidable challenge, writing your own vector math routines is not that hard, or you could probably find some good ones that are not tied to a particular rendering engine. If you avoid tying your entire game to directX math libraries then it would mean that if you do decide to port it to another platform you can just replace your rendering code and the rest of your code will not need to be gutted, everywhere that it uses math routines.

On the other hand it might be the case that the sharpdx math library is separate enough from the rest of sharpdx that it would be possible to use it alongside some other rendering library based on opengl. I'm not familiar enough with sharpdx to know if that's the case, but if the math stuff is a separate DLL then that would be a good sign

 

Cool, thanks for the advice. One concern I had was that to interoperate with DirectX I'd have to use its own math structures, which would mean copying from my own to DX, then going from there, which seems like a wasted step, but I actually now think I'm mistaken, as it looks like I really can copy any data into a buffer; it doesn't need to originate as a DX Vector3 or whatever. While learning though, I'll probably, for now, still stick with SharpDX math structures, then as soon as I'm ready, start using my own, because that will have the added benefit of forcing me to rehash the linear algebra knowledge I've been learning, and mentally associate the different seemingly-abstract operations with their practical applications in 3D programming, which will help drum that knowledge in. All the sources I've been reading/watching so far seem to separate the mathematical principles from the application, which means while i'm trying to learn all the relevant knowledge prerequisites in, say, matrix algebra, i'm not absorbing it as well as I should, because the theory doesn't talk much about how a given operation actually applies in the real world which means all I see is a bunch of abstract operations, many of which don't seem to have any obvious purpose.

Edited by axefrog
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You shouldn't worry now about the very low risk worst case of a very unlikely event: you aren't actually planning to replace SharpDX with OpenGL-based rendering or to make them coexist; in case you do it, the SharpDX math library might or might not become unsuitable or an inappropriate dependency; if you really need to switch to another math library, a massive round of editing is going to be easy (the mathematical abstractions are fundamentally identical) and a negligible effort compared to porting the graphical side to OpenGL.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the others have mentioned several times, I would also suggest tackling one of the APIs at a time.  If you can write a renderer in one API, then another renderer using the other API, then you will be moderately equipped to design a system for putting the two together.  Also, keep in mind that your designs will surely evolve as you tackle different challenges, so don't be afraid to experiment and shake things up.  Especially if this is a hobby project - don't limit yourself right out of the gate, but rather challenge yourself to make some big steps in the design!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was very similar to you. When I first started using Direct X 7, I wanted to create an abstraction layer so I'd later be able to support other things, maybe even other OS. Well I still think this is a good idea, at the time I was new to graphics programing and just learning DX 7 was a huge task for me. I never ended up supporting any other API, and when I moved to DX8, I scrapped most of the code anyway. (FYI, first attempts usually suck.)

Now that I've written like 5 or 6 different 3D engines, I've finally think I have enough knowledge to do a multiplatform framework. It's working well, but after I finish this game, I'll probably redesign it yet again.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the others have mentioned several times, I would also suggest tackling one of the APIs at a time.  If you can write a renderer in one API, then another renderer using the other API, then you will be moderately equipped to design a system for putting the two together.  Also, keep in mind that your designs will surely evolve as you tackle different challenges, so don't be afraid to experiment and shake things up.  Especially if this is a hobby project - don't limit yourself right out of the gate, but rather challenge yourself to make some big steps in the design!

 

Agreed, and I have sort of come to this conclusion as well. I wouldn't explicitly call what I'm doing a hobby project, as I'd like to do it commrcially, full time in the future, but I have a lot of learning to do first.

 

I was very similar to you. When I first started using Direct X 7, I wanted to create an abstraction layer so I'd later be able to support other things, maybe even other OS. Well I still think this is a good idea, at the time I was new to graphics programing and just learning DX 7 was a huge task for me. I never ended up supporting any other API, and when I moved to DX8, I scrapped most of the code anyway. (FYI, first attempts usually suck.)

Now that I've written like 5 or 6 different 3D engines, I've finally think I have enough knowledge to do a multiplatform framework. It's working well, but after I finish this game, I'll probably redesign it yet again.

 

They say, figuratively, that you do everything at least three times; once to learn how to do it, once to do it, and once to do it properly. The third stage is probably more of an endless series of improvements and rewrites, but such as life in the world of development. I've been through this process repeatedly in web and application development, but 3D graphics programming is a whole new ball game, so it's back to the drawing board, to a large degree.

1

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