# DX11 Bottleneck in MD5 animation

This topic is 1615 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

Well met,

I have implemented animation into my 3d engine [dx11]. I chose the md5 format, known from doom 3 I think, because it appeared

to be the most simple format for bonebased animations (correct me, if im wrong on this).

Anyway, I manage to make it work, but appearently I created a bottleneck somewhere, because even a very simple anymation with 3 bones and like 50 polys makes everything slow as hell when played more than 10 times at once on the screen.

I doublechecked the code for the animation itself, im not allocating memory every frame or something like that. So my best guess is that it has to do with the passing from CPU to GPU, which is done like this:


D3D11_MAPPED_SUBRESOURCE mappedResource;
cbPerObject* dataPtr;
dataPtr = (cbPerObject*)mappedResource.pData;
dataPtr->worldMatrix = World;
dataPtr->viewMatrix = camView;
dataPtr->projectionMatrix = camProjection;
d3d11DevCon->Unmap(matrixBuffer, 0);
d3d11DevCon->VSSetConstantBuffers(0, 1, &matrixBuffer);

for(int i=0;i<numSubsets;i++){

d3d11DevCon->IASetIndexBuffer(subsets[i].indexBuff, DXGI_FORMAT_R32_UINT, 0);
d3d11DevCon->IASetVertexBuffers( 0, 1, &subsets[i].vertBuff, &stride, &offset );
d3d11DevCon->DrawIndexed(subsets[i].indices.size(), 0, 0 );

}


I am only using Vertex and Pixelshader, both very basic.

EDIT: After further inverstigation, I figured that this part is the slow one, not the actual rendering. It's the update for the vertices using the bones.

EDIT2: Okey, I managed to narrow down the problem - using more-poly objects makes me lose more performace. Therefore, the problem lies not in something nasty called per object, but something called per vertex/joint .... Or MD5 is just a really slow format, but I can't see why this would be the case. Someone please enlighten me :(


struct Weight{
int jointID;
float bias;
D3DXVECTOR3 normal;
D3DXVECTOR3 pos;
};

struct ModelSubset{

int numTriangles;

vector<Vertex> vertices;
vector<DWORD> indices;
vector<Weight> weights;

vector<D3DXVECTOR3> positions;
VertexPosNormalTex *verts;
unsigned long *indis;

ID3D11Buffer* vertBuff;
ID3D11Buffer* indexBuff;
};

void animatedModel::updateWithAnimation(float deltaTime, int animationID){

currentAnimationID = animationID;
animations[animationID].currAnimTime += deltaTime; // Update the current animation time

if(animations[animationID].currAnimTime > animations[animationID].totalAnimTime){animations[animationID].currAnimTime = 0.0f;}

// Which frame are we on
float currentFrame = animations[animationID].currAnimTime * animations[animationID].frameRate;
int frame0 = floorf( currentFrame );
int frame1 = frame0 + 1;

// Make sure we don't go over the number of frames
if(frame0 == animations[animationID].numFrames-1){frame1 = 0;}

float interpolation = currentFrame - frame0; // Get the remainder (in time) between frame0 and frame1 to use as interpolation factor

vector<joint> interpolatedSkeleton; // Create a frame skeleton to store the interpolated skeletons in

// Compute the interpolated skeleton
for( int i = 0; i < animations[animationID].numJoints; i++){
joint tempJoint;
joint joint0 = animations[animationID].frameSkeleton[frame0][i]; // Get the i'th joint of frame0's skeleton
joint joint1 = animations[animationID].frameSkeleton[frame1][i]; // Get the i'th joint of frame1's skeleton

tempJoint.parentID = joint0.parentID; // Set the tempJoints parent id

// Turn the two quaternions into XMVECTORs for easy computations
D3DXQUATERNION joint0Orient = D3DXQUATERNION(joint0.orientation.x, joint0.orientation.y, joint0.orientation.z, joint0.orientation.w);
D3DXQUATERNION joint1Orient = D3DXQUATERNION(joint1.orientation.x, joint1.orientation.y, joint1.orientation.z, joint1.orientation.w);

// Interpolate positions
tempJoint.pos.x = joint0.pos.x + (interpolation * (joint1.pos.x - joint0.pos.x));
tempJoint.pos.y = joint0.pos.y + (interpolation * (joint1.pos.y - joint0.pos.y));
tempJoint.pos.z = joint0.pos.z + (interpolation * (joint1.pos.z - joint0.pos.z));

// Interpolate orientations using spherical interpolation (Slerp)
D3DXQUATERNION tempO;
D3DXQuaternionSlerp(&tempO, &joint0Orient, &joint1Orient, interpolation);
tempJoint.orientation.x = tempO.x;
tempJoint.orientation.y = tempO.y;
tempJoint.orientation.z = tempO.z;
tempJoint.orientation.w = tempO.w;

interpolatedSkeleton.push_back(tempJoint); // Push the joint back into our interpolated skeleton
}

for ( int k = 0; k < numSubsets; k++){
for ( int i = 0; i < subsets[k].vertices.size(); ++i ){
Vertex tempVert = subsets[k].vertices[i];
tempVert.pos = D3DXVECTOR3(0, 0, 0); // Make sure the vertex's pos is cleared first
tempVert.normal = D3DXVECTOR3(0,0,0); // Clear vertices normal

// Sum up the joints and weights information to get vertex's position and normal
for ( int j = 0; j < tempVert.WeightCount; ++j ){
Weight tempWeight = subsets[k].weights[tempVert.StartWeight + j];
joint tempJoint = interpolatedSkeleton[tempWeight.jointID];

// Convert joint orientation and weight pos to vectors for easier computation
D3DXQUATERNION tempJointOrientation = D3DXQUATERNION(tempJoint.orientation.x, tempJoint.orientation.y, tempJoint.orientation.z, tempJoint.orientation.w);
D3DXQUATERNION tempWeightPos = D3DXQUATERNION(tempWeight.pos.x, tempWeight.pos.y, tempWeight.pos.z, 0.0f);

// We will need to use the conjugate of the joint orientation quaternion
D3DXQUATERNION tempJointOrientationConjugate;
D3DXQuaternionInverse(&tempJointOrientationConjugate, &tempJointOrientation);

// Calculate vertex position (in joint space, eg. rotate the point around (0,0,0)) for this weight using the joint orientation quaternion and its conjugate
// We can rotate a point using a quaternion with the equation "rotatedPoint = quaternion * point * quaternionConjugate"
D3DXVECTOR3 rotatedPoint;
D3DXQUATERNION temp1, temp2;
D3DXQuaternionMultiply(&temp1, &tempJointOrientation, &tempWeightPos);
D3DXQuaternionMultiply(&temp2, &temp1, &tempJointOrientationConjugate);
rotatedPoint.x = temp2.x;rotatedPoint.y = temp2.y;rotatedPoint.z = temp2.z;

// Now move the verices position from joint space (0,0,0) to the joints position in world space, taking the weights bias into account
tempVert.pos.x += ( tempJoint.pos.x + rotatedPoint.x ) * tempWeight.bias;
tempVert.pos.y += ( tempJoint.pos.y + rotatedPoint.y ) * tempWeight.bias;
tempVert.pos.z += ( tempJoint.pos.z + rotatedPoint.z ) * tempWeight.bias;

// Compute the normals for this frames skeleton using the weight normals from before
// We can comput the normals the same way we compute the vertices position, only we don't have to translate them (just rotate)
D3DXQUATERNION tempWeightNormal = D3DXQUATERNION(tempWeight.normal.x, tempWeight.normal.y, tempWeight.normal.z, 0.0f);

// Rotate the normal
D3DXVECTOR3 rotatedPoint2;
D3DXQUATERNION temp3, temp4;
D3DXQuaternionMultiply(&temp3, &tempJointOrientation, &tempWeightPos);
D3DXQuaternionMultiply(&temp4, &temp3, &tempJointOrientationConjugate);
rotatedPoint2.x = temp4.x; rotatedPoint2.y = temp4.y; rotatedPoint2.z = temp4.z;

// Add to vertices normal and ake weight bias into account
tempVert.normal.x -= rotatedPoint2.x * tempWeight.bias;
tempVert.normal.y -= rotatedPoint2.y * tempWeight.bias;
tempVert.normal.z -= rotatedPoint2.z * tempWeight.bias;
}

subsets[k].positions[i] = tempVert.pos; // Store the vertices position in the position vector instead of straight into the vertex vector
subsets[k].vertices[i].normal = tempVert.normal; // Store the vertices normal
D3DXVec3Normalize(&subsets[k].vertices[i].normal, &subsets[k].vertices[i].normal);

}

// Put the positions into the vertices for this subset
for(int i = 0; i < subsets[k].vertices.size(); i++){
subsets[k].vertices[i].pos = subsets[k].positions[i];
subsets[k].verts[i].pos = subsets[k].vertices[i].pos;
subsets[k].verts[i].normal = subsets[k].vertices[i].normal;
subsets[k].verts[i].texcoord = subsets[k].vertices[i].texCoord;
}

D3D11_MAPPED_SUBRESOURCE mappedVertBuff;
VertexPosNormalTex *updatedV; updatedV = (VertexPosNormalTex *)mappedVertBuff.pData;
for(int h=0;h<subsets[k].vertices.size();h++){
updatedV[h].pos = subsets[k].verts[h].pos;
updatedV[h].normal = subsets[k].verts[h].normal;
updatedV[h].texcoord = subsets[k].verts[h].texcoord;
}
d3d11DevCon->Unmap(subsets[k].vertBuff, 0);

}
}

Edited by gnomgrol

• 10
• 16
• 14
• 18
• 15
• ### Similar Content

• By chiffre
Introduction:
In general my questions pertain to the differences between floating- and fixed-point data. Additionally I would like to understand when it can be advantageous to prefer fixed-point representation over floating-point representation in the context of vertex data and how the hardware deals with the different data-types. I believe I should be able to reduce the amount of data (bytes) necessary per vertex by choosing the most opportune representations for my vertex attributes. Thanks ahead of time if you, the reader, are considering the effort of reading this and helping me.
I found an old topic that shows this is possible in principal, but I am not sure I understand what the pitfalls are when using fixed-point representation and whether there are any hardware-based performance advantages/disadvantages.
(TLDR at bottom)
The Actual Post:
To my understanding HLSL/D3D11 offers not just the traditional floating point model in half-,single-, and double-precision, but also the fixed-point model in form of signed/unsigned normalized integers in 8-,10-,16-,24-, and 32-bit variants. Both models offer a finite sequence of "grid-points". The obvious difference between the two models is that the fixed-point model offers a constant spacing between values in the normalized range of [0,1] or [-1,1], while the floating point model allows for smaller "deltas" as you get closer to 0, and larger "deltas" the further you are away from 0.
To add some context, let me define a struct as an example:
struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits float[2] texCoord; //2x32-bits float[3] normals; //3x32-bits } //Total of 32 bytes Every vertex gets a position, a coordinate on my texture, and a normal to do some light calculations. In this case we have 8x32=256bits per vertex. Since the texture coordinates lie in the interval [0,1] and the normal vector components are in the interval [-1,1] it would seem useful to use normalized representation as suggested in the topic linked at the top of the post. The texture coordinates might as well be represented in a fixed-point model, because it seems most useful to be able to sample the texture in a uniform manner, as the pixels don't get any "denser" as we get closer to 0. In other words the "delta" does not need to become any smaller as the texture coordinates approach (0,0). A similar argument can be made for the normal-vector, as a normal vector should be normalized anyway, and we want as many points as possible on the sphere around (0,0,0) with a radius of 1, and we don't care about precision around the origin. Even if we have large textures such as 4k by 4k (or the maximum allowed by D3D11, 16k by 16k) we only need as many grid-points on one axis, as there are pixels on one axis. An unsigned normalized 14 bit integer would be ideal, but because it is both unsupported and impractical, we will stick to an unsigned normalized 16 bit integer. The same type should take care of the normal vector coordinates, and might even be a bit overkill.
struct VertexData { float[3] position; //3x32-bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint16_t[3] normals; //3x16bits } //Total of 22 bytes Seems like a good start, and we might even be able to take it further, but before we pursue that path, here is my first question: can the GPU even work with the data in this format, or is all I have accomplished minimizing CPU-side RAM usage? Does the GPU have to convert the texture coordinates back to a floating-point model when I hand them over to the sampler in my pixel shader? I have looked up the data types for HLSL and I am not sure I even comprehend how to declare the vertex input type in HLSL. Would the following work?
struct VertexInputType { float3 pos; //this one is obvious unorm half2 tex; //half corresponds to a 16-bit float, so I assume this is wrong, but this the only 16-bit type I found on the linked MSDN site snorm half3 normal; //same as above } I assume this is possible somehow, as I have found input element formats such as: DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_SNORM and DXGI_FORMAT_R16G16B16A16_UNORM (also available with a different number of components, as well as different component lengths). I might have to avoid 3-component vectors because there is no 3-component 16-bit input element format, but that is the least of my worries. The next question would be: what happens with my normals if I try to do lighting calculations with them in such a normalized-fixed-point format? Is there no issue as long as I take care not to mix floating- and fixed-point data? Or would that work as well? In general this gives rise to the question: how does the GPU handle fixed-point arithmetic? Is it the same as integer-arithmetic, and/or is it faster/slower than floating-point arithmetic?
Assuming that we still have a valid and useful VertexData format, how far could I take this while remaining on the sensible side of what could be called optimization? Theoretically I could use the an input element format such as DXGI_FORMAT_R10G10B10A2_UNORM to pack my normal coordinates into a 10-bit fixed-point format, and my verticies (in object space) might even be representable in a 16-bit unsigned normalized fixed-point format. That way I could end up with something like the following struct:
struct VertexData { uint16_t[3] pos; //3x16bits uint16_t[2] texCoord; //2x16bits uint32_t packedNormals; //10+10+10+2bits } //Total of 14 bytes Could I use a vertex structure like this without too much performance-loss on the GPU-side? If the GPU has to execute some sort of unpacking algorithm in the background I might as well let it be. In the end I have a functioning deferred renderer, but I would like to reduce the memory footprint of the huge amount of vertecies involved in rendering my landscape.
TLDR: I have a lot of vertices that I need to render and I want to reduce the RAM-usage without introducing crazy compression/decompression algorithms to the CPU or GPU. I am hoping to find a solution by involving fixed-point data-types, but I am not exactly sure how how that would work.
• By cozzie
Hi all,
I was wondering it it matters in which order you draw 2D and 3D items, looking at the BeginDraw/EndDraw calls on a D2D rendertarget.
The order in which you do the actual draw calls is clear, 3D first then 2D, means the 2D (DrawText in this case) is in front of the 3D scene.
The question is mainly about when to call the BeginDraw and EndDraw.
Note that I'm drawing D2D stuff through a DXGI surface linked to the 3D RT.
Option 1:
A - Begin frame, clear D3D RT
B - Draw 3D
C - BeginDraw D2D RT
D - Draw 2D
E - EndDraw D2D RT
F - Present
Option 2:
A - Begin frame, clear D3D RT + BeginDraw D2D RT
B - Draw 3D
C - Draw 2D
D - EndDraw D2D RT
E- Present
Would there be a difference (performance/issue?) in using option 2? (versus 1)
Any input is appreciated.

• Do you know any papers that cover custom data structures like lists or binary trees implemented in hlsl without CUDA that work perfectly fine no matter how many threads try to use them at any given time?
• By cozzie
Hi all,
Last week I noticed that when I run my test application(s) in Renderdoc, it crashes when it enable my code that uses D2D/DirectWrite. In Visual Studio no issues occur (debug or release), but when I run the same executable in Renderdoc, it crashes somehow (assert of D2D rendertarget or without any information). Before I spend hours on debugging/ figuring it out, does someone have experience with this symptom and/or know if Renderdoc has known issues with D2D? (if so, that would be bad news for debugging my application in the future );
I can also post some more information on what happens, code and which code commented out, eliminates the problems (when running in RenderDoc).
Any input is appreciated.

• Hi Guys,
I understand how to create input layouts etc... But I am wondering is it at all possible to derive an input layout from a shader and create the input layout directly from this? (Rather than manually specifying the input layout format?)