Sign in to follow this  
blueskies9041

OpenGL Using OpenGL for particle systems...

Recommended Posts

blueskies9041    138

I'm a beginner programmer taking a game programming class here in good ole Seattle. I'm ahead of my assignments and my teacher wanted me to find something to do and I decided that a particle system would be a good occupation of my time since the game I'm desining at the moment is very mega man esque (boy do I really want the charge up effect on his blaster).

 

So after reading multiple OpenGL tutorials I've found that I could either generate a particle system using instancing or a combination of geometry shaders and transform feedback. I've heard arguments for both, instancing will work on almost every computer but uses CPU side processing and therefore would be slower in a more graphic intensive game (not important to my 2D game at the moment), whilst geometry shaders and transform feedback would provide an immense performance increase by taking advantage of GPU processing and would be more useful to me in the future.

 

So, which do you guys think is a better idea? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C0lumbo    4411

If you were just trying to implement a particle system for the sake of getting it done, I'd recommend you keep it simple, and generate all four vertices on the CPU and submit as indexed triangles. In a simple 2D title, neither of the more complex approaches are likely to make any material difference to the final performance. However, it sounds like pushing yourself to learn new techniques is a big part of why you want to do it.

 

I think instancing doesn't bring much to the table for a particle system. Per instance, you'll need to send position, size, rotation, texture coordinates and it probably won't end up measurably faster than generating and sending all four vertices.

 

If I understand what you mean by the geometry shader/transform feedback approach, you're talking about using the vertex shader to update your particles using transform feedback and the geometry shader when rendering to expand a single particle into a quad. That sounds much more worthwhile both in terms of learning about interesting parts of the pipeline, and for getting some impressive particle throughput if you want to reuse the system for future demos.

 

I'd recommend you still start with the CPU approach first though, that way you have a reference point to check that your fancy rendering path is producing correct results, you have a fallback path for older graphics cards that you can use for your game, and you have a reference point to measure the speed boost against (in a job interview situation it's always nice to have solid performance numbers if you're talking about optimisations you made).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Promit    13246

Geometry shading is one of those things that looks great on paper and works terribly in real life. You're better off driving particle systems from the CPU. Also I've found that once you move into production with actual art goals, instancing doesn't help a lot for particles either. There's too much you want to do and instancing isn't very helpful for performance. It's easiest just to keep a double or triple buffered VBO (two or three buffers marked GL_STREAM_DRAW and switched every frame), and write the vertices manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheChubu    9452

Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCeNzgiJ8I

 

I had seen the slides before but Valve released the video. First thing in the talk is a way to efficiently manage buffers for particle rendering.

 

The bad side is that the solution depends on ARB_buffer_storage. Which is a very, very new extension (as in only available in OpenGL 4.4 hardware). Though it explains why the conventional approach is slow, so you might get something out of it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Welch    1008

The bad side is that the solution depends on ARB_buffer_storage. Which is a very, very new extension (as in only available in OpenGL 4.4 hardware). Though it explains why the conventional approach is slow, so you might get something out of it anyway.

That's an interesting video, but only Nvidia supports OpenGL 4.4 so far

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  

  • Similar Content

    • By povilaslt2
      Hello. I'm Programmer who is in search of 2D game project who preferably uses OpenGL and C++. You can see my projects in GitHub. Project genre doesn't matter (except MMO's :D).
    • By ZeldaFan555
      Hello, My name is Matt. I am a programmer. I mostly use Java, but can use C++ and various other languages. I'm looking for someone to partner up with for random projects, preferably using OpenGL, though I'd be open to just about anything. If you're interested you can contact me on Skype or on here, thank you!
      Skype: Mangodoor408
    • By tyhender
      Hello, my name is Mark. I'm hobby programmer. 
      So recently,I thought that it's good idea to find people to create a full 3D engine. I'm looking for people experienced in scripting 3D shaders and implementing physics into engine(game)(we are going to use the React physics engine). 
      And,ye,no money =D I'm just looking for hobbyists that will be proud of their work. If engine(or game) will have financial succes,well,then maybe =D
      Sorry for late replies.
      I mostly give more information when people PM me,but this post is REALLY short,even for me =D
      So here's few more points:
      Engine will use openGL and SDL for graphics. It will use React3D physics library for physics simulation. Engine(most probably,atleast for the first part) won't have graphical fron-end,it will be a framework . I think final engine should be enough to set up an FPS in a couple of minutes. A bit about my self:
      I've been programming for 7 years total. I learned very slowly it as "secondary interesting thing" for like 3 years, but then began to script more seriously.  My primary language is C++,which we are going to use for the engine. Yes,I did 3D graphics with physics simulation before. No, my portfolio isn't very impressive. I'm working on that No,I wasn't employed officially. If anybody need to know more PM me. 
       
    • By Zaphyk
      I am developing my engine using the OpenGL 3.3 compatibility profile. It runs as expected on my NVIDIA card and on my Intel Card however when I tried it on an AMD setup it ran 3 times worse than on the other setups. Could this be a AMD driver thing or is this probably a problem with my OGL code? Could a different code standard create such bad performance?
    • By Kjell Andersson
      I'm trying to get some legacy OpenGL code to run with a shader pipeline,
      The legacy code uses glVertexPointer(), glColorPointer(), glNormalPointer() and glTexCoordPointer() to supply the vertex information.
      I know that it should be using setVertexAttribPointer() etc to clearly define the layout but that is not an option right now since the legacy code can't be modified to that extent.
      I've got a version 330 vertex shader to somewhat work:
      #version 330 uniform mat4 osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix; uniform mat4 osg_ModelViewMatrix; layout(location = 0) in vec4 Vertex; layout(location = 2) in vec4 Normal; // Velocity layout(location = 3) in vec3 TexCoord; // TODO: is this the right layout location? out VertexData { vec4 color; vec3 velocity; float size; } VertexOut; void main(void) { vec4 p0 = Vertex; vec4 p1 = Vertex + vec4(Normal.x, Normal.y, Normal.z, 0.0f); vec3 velocity = (osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * p1 - osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * p0).xyz; VertexOut.velocity = velocity; VertexOut.size = TexCoord.y; gl_Position = osg_ModelViewMatrix * Vertex; } What works is the Vertex and Normal information that the legacy C++ OpenGL code seem to provide in layout location 0 and 2. This is fine.
      What I'm not getting to work is the TexCoord information that is supplied by a glTexCoordPointer() call in C++.
      Question:
      What layout location is the old standard pipeline using for glTexCoordPointer()? Or is this undefined?
       
      Side note: I'm trying to get an OpenSceneGraph 3.4.0 particle system to use custom vertex, geometry and fragment shaders for rendering the particles.
  • Popular Now