Sign in to follow this  
satanir

DX11 Best way to render text with DirectX11

Recommended Posts

So, there's a bunch of methods for text rendering with DX11. The ones I know of are:

  1. Sprite rendering. Pretty straightforward and well-known. Only con I see is the dynamic VB calculation each draw.
  2. Use D2D. You get a simple, HW accelerated API, but on Win7 means another DX10.1 device, sharing the BB, synchronizing, which basically takes the simple API and wraps it with not so nice looking code. Not sure if it has real performance gain over sprites.
  3. Use GDI+ to render text directly to the back-buffer. I assume performance will be bad, though I haven't tried it.

 

In terms of performance and code complexity, which one is better?

Is there another option I'm unaware of?

 

(And MS, why did you leave D2D/D3D11 interop out of Win7!?!?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In terms of performance and code complexity, which one is better?

Is there another option I'm unaware of?


Sprite rendering. Pretty straightforward and well-known. Only con I see is the dynamic VB calculation each draw.


(And MS, why did you leave D2D/D3D11 interop out of Win7!?!?)

Because Windows 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calculation of VB each draw is probably not really neccessary. Because you can add something like "dirty" flag, and calculate buffer only if text was changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers guys. I already know about all those stuff, and my framework implements the sprite-batch approach.

 

I was just wondering if someone got the chance to try other approaches and share his experience with - in regards to performance and code complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was just wondering if someone got the chance to try other approaches and share his experience with - in regards to performance and code complexity.

I render every glyph as a quad of 2 triangles, sampling glyph texture with no filtering, calibrating perfect fit as per pixel. If you happen to have a resolution of 8000x4000, you will see outputed glyph very small, needing binocular scaler. But- in a good quality. I cannot help myself in this manner. Vertex glyphs are off of me, nor vertex font definitions fractals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(And MS, why did you leave D2D/D3D11 interop out of Win7!?!?)

 

Didn't they fix this in the platform update a year ago?

I'm reasonably sure... but Google doesn't give me any clear answer right now... 11.1 device (at any feature level).

 

 

You can combine sprite-sheets with signed distance fields for pretty good quality in magnified and 3D transformed text.

 

There was a thread recently which links to a pretty cool method: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/659230-font-rendering/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


(And MS, why did you leave D2D/D3D11 interop out of Win7!?!?)

 

Didn't they fix this in the platform update a year ago?

I'm reasonably sure... but Google doesn't give me any clear answer right now... 11.1 device (at any feature level).

 

 

You can combine sprite-sheets with signed distance fields for pretty good quality in magnified and 3D transformed text.

 

There was a thread recently which links to a pretty cool method: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/659230-font-rendering/

 

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the Win7 platform update added D3D11 support for D2D and DirectWrite (although I haven't personally tried doing the interop).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the Win7 platform update added D3D11 support for D2D and DirectWrite (although I haven't personally tried doing the interop).


Great, I'll give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am cofirm that Win 7 support D2D with D3D11 now, because I implement this feature in my engine more than a year ago.

Cool. Any performance impact vs. the sprites method?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am cofirm that Win 7 support D2D with D3D11 now, because I implement this feature in my engine more than a year ago.

Cool. Any performance impact vs. the sprites method?

 

 

I didnt try sprite font as I thinhk this is unacceptable in 2014. But I cant see any performance problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after trying D2D, I like sprites better, mainly due to design issues caused by the D2D approach:

  • For each 3D render-target I want to render text into, I need a matching a D2D render target. Need to track this dependencies. Also, when do we create the D2D RT - on use? on create? When do we destroy?
  • This also complicates some events - device lost, window resize, etc.
  • To create/destroy those D2D RTs, I need a wrapper around the D2D object.

 

Not saying those issues can't be solved, but I think that design-wise - sprites are better, since they fit more naturally into the system.

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  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      627773
    • Total Posts
      2979011
  • Similar Content

    • By AxeGuywithanAxe
      I wanted to get some advice on what everyone thinks of this debugger, I've been getting some strange results from testing my code and I wanted to see if anyone else had an issues.
      For instance, I added three "ClearRenderTargetView" calls and three "Draw full screen quad" calls and my reported fps became a fifth of what it usually was. Thank you.
    • By schneckerstein
      Hello,
      I manged so far to implement NVIDIA's NDF-Filtering at a basic level (the paper can be found here). Here is my code so far:
      //... // project the half vector on the normal (?) float3 hppWS = halfVector / dot(halfVector, geometricNormal) float2 hpp = float2(dot(hppWS, wTangent), dot(hppWS, wBitangent)); // compute the pixel footprint float2x2 dhduv = float2x2(ddx(hpp), ddy(hpp)); // compute the rectangular area of the pixel footprint float2 rectFp = min((abs(dhduv[0]) + abs(dhduv[1])) * 0.5, 0.3); // map the area to ggx roughness float2 covMx = rectFp * rectFp * 2; roughness = sqrt(roughness * roughness + covMx); //... Now I want combine this with LEAN mapping as state in Chapter 5.5 of the NDF paper.
      But I struggle to understand what theses sections actually means in Code: 
      I suppose the first-order moments are the B coefficent of the LEAN map, however things like
      float3 hppWS = halfVector / dot(halfVector, float3(lean_B, 0)); doesn't bring up anything usefull.
      Next theres:
      This simply means:
      // M and B are the coefficents from the LEAN map float2x2 sigma_mat = float2x2( M.x - B.x * B.x, M.z - B.x * B.y, M.z - B.x * B.y, M.y - B.y * B.y); does it?
      Finally:
      This is the part confuses me the most: how am I suppose to convolute two matrices? I know the concept of convolution in terms of functions, not matrices. Should I multiple them? That didn't make any usefully output.
      I hope someone can help with this maybe too specific question, I'm really despaired to make this work and i've spend too many hours of trial & error...
      Cheers,
      Julian
    • By Baemz
      Hello,
      I've been working on some culling-techniques for a project. We've built our own engine so pretty much everything is built from scratch. I've set up a frustum with the following code, assuming that the FOV is 90 degrees.
      float angle = CU::ToRadians(45.f); Plane<float> nearPlane(Vector3<float>(0, 0, aNear), Vector3<float>(0, 0, -1)); Plane<float> farPlane(Vector3<float>(0, 0, aFar), Vector3<float>(0, 0, 1)); Plane<float> right(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(angle, 0, -angle)); Plane<float> left(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(-angle, 0, -angle)); Plane<float> up(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(0, angle, -angle)); Plane<float> down(Vector3<float>(0, 0, 0), Vector3<float>(0, -angle, -angle)); myVolume.AddPlane(nearPlane); myVolume.AddPlane(farPlane); myVolume.AddPlane(right); myVolume.AddPlane(left); myVolume.AddPlane(up); myVolume.AddPlane(down); When checking the intersections I am using a BoundingSphere of my models, which is calculated by taking the average position of all vertices and then choosing the furthest distance to a vertex for radius. The actual intersection test looks like this, where the "myFrustum90" is the actual frustum described above.
      The orientationInverse is the viewMatrix in this case.
      bool CFrustum::Intersects(const SFrustumCollider& aCollider) { CU::Vector4<float> position = CU::Vector4<float>(aCollider.myCenter.x, aCollider.myCenter.y, aCollider.myCenter.z, 1.f) * myOrientationInverse; return myFrustum90.Inside({ position.x, position.y, position.z }, aCollider.myRadius); } The Inside() function looks like this.
      template <typename T> bool PlaneVolume<T>::Inside(Vector3<T> aPosition, T aRadius) const { for (unsigned short i = 0; i < myPlaneList.size(); ++i) { if (myPlaneList[i].ClassifySpherePlane(aPosition, aRadius) > 0) { return false; } } return true; } And this is the ClassifySpherePlane() function. (The plane is defined as a Vector4 called myABCD, where ABC is the normal)
      template <typename T> inline int Plane<T>::ClassifySpherePlane(Vector3<T> aSpherePosition, float aSphereRadius) const { float distance = (aSpherePosition.Dot(myNormal)) - myABCD.w; // completely on the front side if (distance >= aSphereRadius) { return 1; } // completely on the backside (aka "inside") if (distance <= -aSphereRadius) { return -1; } //sphere intersects the plane return 0; }  
      Please bare in mind that this code is not optimized nor well-written by any means. I am just looking to get it working.
      The result of this culling is that the models seem to be culled a bit "too early", so that the culling is visible and the models pops away.
      How do I get the culling to work properly?
      I have tried different techniques but haven't gotten any of them to work.
      If you need more code or explanations feel free to ask for it.

      Thanks.
       
    • By evelyn4you
      hi,
      i have read very much about the binding of a constantbuffer to a shader but something is still unclear to me.
      e.g. when performing :   vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer,  slot )
       is the buffer bound
      a.  to the VertexShaderStage
      or
      b. to the VertexShader that is currently set as the active VertexShader
      Is it possible to bind a constantBuffer to a VertexShader e.g. VS_A and keep this binding even after the active VertexShader has changed ?
      I mean i want to bind constantbuffer_A  to VS_A, an Constantbuffer_B to VS_B  and  only use updateSubresource without using setConstantBuffer command every time.

      Look at this example:
      SetVertexShader ( VS_A )
      updateSubresource(buffer_A)
      vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer_A,  slot_A )
      perform drawcall       ( buffer_A is used )

      SetVertexShader ( VS_B )
      updateSubresource(buffer_B)
      vertexshader.setConstantbuffer ( buffer_B,  slot_A )
      perform drawcall   ( buffer_B is used )
      SetVertexShader ( VS_A )
      perform drawcall   (now which buffer is used ??? )
       
      I ask this question because i have made a custom render engine an want to optimize to
      the minimum  updateSubresource, and setConstantbuffer  calls
       
       
       
       
       
    • By noodleBowl
      I got a quick question about buffers when it comes to DirectX 11. If I bind a buffer using a command like:
      IASetVertexBuffers IASetIndexBuffer VSSetConstantBuffers PSSetConstantBuffers  and then later on I update that bound buffer's data using commands like Map/Unmap or any of the other update commands.
      Do I need to rebind the buffer again in order for my update to take effect? If I dont rebind is that really bad as in I get a performance hit? My thought process behind this is that if the buffer is already bound why do I need to rebind it? I'm using that same buffer it is just different data
       
  • Popular Now