Sign in to follow this  
noodleBowl

OpenGL Vertex Shader Iteration

Recommended Posts

I'm working with OpenGL 3.3 and I got a question about the possibility of updating multiple vertices through the Vertex Shader.
I know you can update a single vertex in a Vertex Shader using transform feedback, but I was wondering could you update multiple vertices at a single time?
 
Something like:
 

//Vertex Shader Code
 
in float vertexType;
in vec3 position;
 
out float vertexType;
out vec3 positionOUT;
 
unifomr float modCount;
 
void main()
{
      //Do the following for the next 5 vertex
      if(vertexType == 0)
      {
           vertexTypeOUT = vertexType;
           positionOUT = position;
 
           //Mod the next X number of vertex; X is based on modCount uniform
           for(int i = 0; i < modCount; ++i)
           {
                  //Something like this?
                  vertexTypeOUT[i] = vertexType[i];
                  positionOUT[i] = position[i];
           }
       }
       else
       {
            vertexTypeOUT = vertexType;
            positionOUT = position;
       }
    }
 
}
 
Edited by noodleBowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it you're trying to do exactly?

 

So I'm in the midst of trying to create a particle emitter and it is working (particles update and show up on screen) biggrin.png

It works by using transform feedback, where the each particle (GL_POINTS) is updated through the vertex shader and the results of the update get written to a buffer object. This buffer object is then bound at render time as a Texture Buffer, so I can expand my points into a quads without the use of Geometry Shader.

I now I want to add in the ability to spawn X particles every Y seconds

I was thinking that on the first run of the vertex shader I could run through X number of vertices, reactivate them (basically resetting their life time), and then finish this first run by updating the first vertex. After (next and subsequent runs) I could continue on like normal and just update the particle

 

Edited by noodleBowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would really like to stick to OpenGL only

 

I have been thinking of ways that I could achieve what I'm trying to do and I wanted to know everyone's thoughts on them

Now, I'm strictly talking about the update side of things here as the rendering part is taken care of.

 

Conditions

1. Ability to generate X particles every Y seconds

2. Lots and lots of particles. Have as many as I can

3. Particles have textures and attributes like position, lifetime, size, etc
 

Idea 1

Use a pass through Vertex Shader with a Geometry Shader. Where the Geometry Shader takes in GL_POINTS and spits back out GL_POINTS. In this case the Geometry Shader would be the one responsible for updating the particles. (Might be faster to update in Vertex Shader and then check if I need to discard in the Geometry Shader. Thoughts?) In addition it only generates new particles through the EmitVertex and EndPrimative calls when the generation time has been hit

 

Pros:

Should be able to allow me to do what I want

Particles "die" and "are created" on the fly

 

Cons:

Have to use a Geometry shader sad.png

Only can emit out MAX_GEOMETRY_OUTPUT_VERTICES (For me this is 1024, lowest it must be is 32)

[Might be able to get past above. Could do multiple updates. If I need to use more than the MAX_GEOMETRY_OUTPUT_VERTICES just write into another part of the buffer or a different buffer all together]

 

Idea 2

Create all the particles that I would ever need and keep a copy of my particles on the CPU side.

When it comes time to "generate" particles, check which particles are "dead" and reset there lifetime using glBufferSubData on the whole buffer (since I dont think multiple glBufferSubData for "dead" particles only would be good). Then afterwards, my buffer gets sent to the Vertex Shader where they get updated. After the update in the Vertex Shader, I save the results back into my CPU's particle copy

 

Pros:

Should be able to allow me to do what I want

Should be able to have as many particles as my hardware can handle

 

Cons:

Might be super slow since I'm pretty sure I need to read back / save the transform feedback buffer

The more particles I have the slower it gets

 

Idea 3

Keep everything as it is and have a global counter to reset the lifetimes of dead particles. When the Vertex Shader runs, check if the "generate particles" flag has been set to true. If so, then revive the particles that are dead and repeat this until counter has met the "number to revive count". Continue on updating the particles

 

Pros:

Should be able to allow me to do what I want

Should be able to have as many particles as my hardware can handle

 

Cons:

I don't think this (a global counter) is possible with the current version of OpenGL I am targeting?

Edited by noodleBowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not move the updating code to a fragment shader which renders to a texture, then use vertex texture fetch for the positions.
Then next frame you bind the previous frame's particle framebuffer as a texture and render the data to a second framebuffer, then use vertex texture fetch and draw,
then next frame bind second framebuffer as the texture and use the first as the render target and repeat. Basically, ping-pong the particle data between the two framebuffers.

This post describes what I mean in detail, as you can see, the performance isn't too bad either http://www.hackbarth-gfx.com/2013/03/17/making-of-1-million-particles/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Might be super slow since I'm pretty sure I need to read back / save the transform feedback buffer

The more particles I have the slower it gets

if you create particle's vertex buffer as not static (dynamic), it will couse it to render not that fast, but per frame updates to it (not realocating its size of course), should come totaly acceptable. Try it out, it is no big hit at all to render a dynamic render buffer, and batched subdata calls to it are of no big issue as well.

a hint:

update the buffer while it is still yet bound after the draw call that has used it (being a frame back thus), move on next gpu issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you create particle's vertex buffer as not static (dynamic), it will couse it to render not that fast, but per frame updates to it (not realocating its size of course), should come totaly acceptable. Try it out, it is no big hit at all to render a dynamic render buffer, and batched subdata calls to it are of no big issue as well.
a hint:
update the buffer while it is still yet bound after the draw call that has used it (being a frame back thus), move on next gpu issue

 

I went back and tried this out (the idea you were referencing) and its super slow

I did a minor test with 10k particles (each particle has 6 attribute each) and its the actual particle update portion that makes the hit to performance. Having to read back from the GPU every frame to keep particles in sync is really rough. At best, on a good, run I'd get a DT of 0.00105 (~950 FPS)

I changed it up to use a pass through Geometry Shader along with a bind to the previous TBO used (done to get psudo random values to use when particles are to be revived) and the performance sky rocketed! I was getting a DT of 0.000606 (~1650 FPS)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


and its the actual particle update portion that makes the hit to performance. Having to read back from the GPU every frame to keep particles in sync is really rough

You read the particles from gpu? Try not to do that, also, I doubt too that dynamic buffer will outperform geometry shader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.slideshare.net/icastano/cascades-demo-secrets

From page 119.

Nvidia Cascades demo where they are running full gpu particle system. Particle updating happen on vertex shader, emitting/killing particle happen on geometry shader. They use double buffered vbo and stream out. Super simple stuff and general enough for most thing. Speed should not be problem with those particle counts.

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  

  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628316
    • Total Posts
      2982032
  • Similar Content

    • By mellinoe
      Hi all,
      First time poster here, although I've been reading posts here for quite a while. This place has been invaluable for learning graphics programming -- thanks for a great resource!
      Right now, I'm working on a graphics abstraction layer for .NET which supports D3D11, Vulkan, and OpenGL at the moment. I have implemented most of my planned features already, and things are working well. Some remaining features that I am planning are Compute Shaders, and some flavor of read-write shader resources. At the moment, my shaders can just get simple read-only access to a uniform (or constant) buffer, a texture, or a sampler. Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time grasping the distinctions between all of the different kinds of read-write resources that are available. In D3D alone, there seem to be 5 or 6 different kinds of resources with similar but different characteristics. On top of that, I get the impression that some of them are more or less "obsoleted" by the newer kinds, and don't have much of a place in modern code. There seem to be a few pivots:
      The data source/destination (buffer or texture) Read-write or read-only Structured or unstructured (?) Ordered vs unordered (?) These are just my observations based on a lot of MSDN and OpenGL doc reading. For my library, I'm not interested in exposing every possibility to the user -- just trying to find a good "middle-ground" that can be represented cleanly across API's which is good enough for common scenarios.
      Can anyone give a sort of "overview" of the different options, and perhaps compare/contrast the concepts between Direct3D, OpenGL, and Vulkan? I'd also be very interested in hearing how other folks have abstracted these concepts in their libraries.
    • By aejt
      I recently started getting into graphics programming (2nd try, first try was many years ago) and I'm working on a 3d rendering engine which I hope to be able to make a 3D game with sooner or later. I have plenty of C++ experience, but not a lot when it comes to graphics, and while it's definitely going much better this time, I'm having trouble figuring out how assets are usually handled by engines.
      I'm not having trouble with handling the GPU resources, but more so with how the resources should be defined and used in the system (materials, models, etc).
      This is my plan now, I've implemented most of it except for the XML parts and factories and those are the ones I'm not sure of at all:
      I have these classes:
      For GPU resources:
      Geometry: holds and manages everything needed to render a geometry: VAO, VBO, EBO. Texture: holds and manages a texture which is loaded into the GPU. Shader: holds and manages a shader which is loaded into the GPU. For assets relying on GPU resources:
      Material: holds a shader resource, multiple texture resources, as well as uniform settings. Mesh: holds a geometry and a material. Model: holds multiple meshes, possibly in a tree structure to more easily support skinning later on? For handling GPU resources:
      ResourceCache<T>: T can be any resource loaded into the GPU. It owns these resources and only hands out handles to them on request (currently string identifiers are used when requesting handles, but all resources are stored in a vector and each handle only contains resource's index in that vector) Resource<T>: The handles given out from ResourceCache. The handles are reference counted and to get the underlying resource you simply deference like with pointers (*handle).  
      And my plan is to define everything into these XML documents to abstract away files:
      Resources.xml for ref-counted GPU resources (geometry, shaders, textures) Resources are assigned names/ids and resource files, and possibly some attributes (what vertex attributes does this geometry have? what vertex attributes does this shader expect? what uniforms does this shader use? and so on) Are reference counted using ResourceCache<T> Assets.xml for assets using the GPU resources (materials, meshes, models) Assets are not reference counted, but they hold handles to ref-counted resources. References the resources defined in Resources.xml by names/ids. The XMLs are loaded into some structure in memory which is then used for loading the resources/assets using factory classes:
      Factory classes for resources:
      For example, a texture factory could contain the texture definitions from the XML containing data about textures in the game, as well as a cache containing all loaded textures. This means it has mappings from each name/id to a file and when asked to load a texture with a name/id, it can look up its path and use a "BinaryLoader" to either load the file and create the resource directly, or asynchronously load the file's data into a queue which then can be read from later to create the resources synchronously in the GL context. These factories only return handles.
      Factory classes for assets:
      Much like for resources, these classes contain the definitions for the assets they can load. For example, with the definition the MaterialFactory will know which shader, textures and possibly uniform a certain material has, and with the help of TextureFactory and ShaderFactory, it can retrieve handles to the resources it needs (Shader + Textures), setup itself from XML data (uniform values), and return a created instance of requested material. These factories return actual instances, not handles (but the instances contain handles).
       
       
      Is this a good or commonly used approach? Is this going to bite me in the ass later on? Are there other more preferable approaches? Is this outside of the scope of a 3d renderer and should be on the engine side? I'd love to receive and kind of advice or suggestions!
      Thanks!
    • By nedondev
      I 'm learning how to create game by using opengl with c/c++ coding, so here is my fist game. In video description also have game contain in Dropbox. May be I will make it better in future.
      Thanks.
    • By Abecederia
      So I've recently started learning some GLSL and now I'm toying with a POM shader. I'm trying to optimize it and notice that it starts having issues at high texture sizes, especially with self-shadowing.
      Now I know POM is expensive either way, but would pulling the heightmap out of the normalmap alpha channel and in it's own 8bit texture make doing all those dozens of texture fetches more cheap? Or is everything in the cache aligned to 32bit anyway? I haven't implemented texture compression yet, I think that would help? But regardless, should there be a performance boost from decoupling the heightmap? I could also keep it in a lower resolution than the normalmap if that would improve performance.
      Any help is much appreciated, please keep in mind I'm somewhat of a newbie. Thanks!
    • By test opty
      Hi,
      I'm trying to learn OpenGL through a website and have proceeded until this page of it. The output is a simple triangle. The problem is the complexity.
      I have read that page several times and tried to analyse the code but I haven't understood the code properly and completely yet. This is the code:
       
      #include <glad/glad.h> #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> #include <C:\Users\Abbasi\Desktop\std_lib_facilities_4.h> using namespace std; //****************************************************************************** void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height); void processInput(GLFWwindow *window); // settings const unsigned int SCR_WIDTH = 800; const unsigned int SCR_HEIGHT = 600; const char *vertexShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "layout (location = 0) in vec3 aPos;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " gl_Position = vec4(aPos.x, aPos.y, aPos.z, 1.0);\n" "}\0"; const char *fragmentShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "out vec4 FragColor;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " FragColor = vec4(1.0f, 0.5f, 0.2f, 1.0f);\n" "}\n\0"; //******************************* int main() { // glfw: initialize and configure // ------------------------------ glfwInit(); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MAJOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MINOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_PROFILE, GLFW_OPENGL_CORE_PROFILE); // glfw window creation GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(SCR_WIDTH, SCR_HEIGHT, "My First Triangle", nullptr, nullptr); if (window == nullptr) { cout << "Failed to create GLFW window" << endl; glfwTerminate(); return -1; } glfwMakeContextCurrent(window); glfwSetFramebufferSizeCallback(window, framebuffer_size_callback); // glad: load all OpenGL function pointers if (!gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress)) { cout << "Failed to initialize GLAD" << endl; return -1; } // build and compile our shader program // vertex shader int vertexShader = glCreateShader(GL_VERTEX_SHADER); glShaderSource(vertexShader, 1, &vertexShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(vertexShader); // check for shader compile errors int success; char infoLog[512]; glGetShaderiv(vertexShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(vertexShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::VERTEX::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // fragment shader int fragmentShader = glCreateShader(GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER); glShaderSource(fragmentShader, 1, &fragmentShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(fragmentShader); // check for shader compile errors glGetShaderiv(fragmentShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(fragmentShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::FRAGMENT::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // link shaders int shaderProgram = glCreateProgram(); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, vertexShader); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, fragmentShader); glLinkProgram(shaderProgram); // check for linking errors glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_LINK_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetProgramInfoLog(shaderProgram, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::PROGRAM::LINKING_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } glDeleteShader(vertexShader); glDeleteShader(fragmentShader); // set up vertex data (and buffer(s)) and configure vertex attributes float vertices[] = { -0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // left 0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // right 0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f // top }; unsigned int VBO, VAO; glGenVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glGenBuffers(1, &VBO); // bind the Vertex Array Object first, then bind and set vertex buffer(s), //and then configure vertex attributes(s). glBindVertexArray(VAO); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, VBO); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertices), vertices, GL_STATIC_DRAW); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 3 * sizeof(float), (void*)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); // note that this is allowed, the call to glVertexAttribPointer registered VBO // as the vertex attribute's bound vertex buffer object so afterwards we can safely unbind glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0); // You can unbind the VAO afterwards so other VAO calls won't accidentally // modify this VAO, but this rarely happens. Modifying other // VAOs requires a call to glBindVertexArray anyways so we generally don't unbind // VAOs (nor VBOs) when it's not directly necessary. glBindVertexArray(0); // uncomment this call to draw in wireframe polygons. //glPolygonMode(GL_FRONT_AND_BACK, GL_LINE); // render loop while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) { // input // ----- processInput(window); // render // ------ glClearColor(0.2f, 0.3f, 0.3f, 1.0f); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); // draw our first triangle glUseProgram(shaderProgram); glBindVertexArray(VAO); // seeing as we only have a single VAO there's no need to // bind it every time, but we'll do so to keep things a bit more organized glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3); // glBindVertexArray(0); // no need to unbind it every time // glfw: swap buffers and poll IO events (keys pressed/released, mouse moved etc.) glfwSwapBuffers(window); glfwPollEvents(); } // optional: de-allocate all resources once they've outlived their purpose: glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glDeleteBuffers(1, &VBO); // glfw: terminate, clearing all previously allocated GLFW resources. glfwTerminate(); return 0; } //************************************************** // process all input: query GLFW whether relevant keys are pressed/released // this frame and react accordingly void processInput(GLFWwindow *window) { if (glfwGetKey(window, GLFW_KEY_ESCAPE) == GLFW_PRESS) glfwSetWindowShouldClose(window, true); } //******************************************************************** // glfw: whenever the window size changed (by OS or user resize) this callback function executes void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height) { // make sure the viewport matches the new window dimensions; note that width and // height will be significantly larger than specified on retina displays. glViewport(0, 0, width, height); } As you see, about 200 lines of complicated code only for a simple triangle. 
      I don't know what parts are necessary for that output. And also, what the correct order of instructions for such an output or programs is, generally. That start point is too complex for a beginner of OpenGL like me and I don't know how to make the issue solved. What are your ideas please? What is the way to figure both the code and the whole program out correctly please?
      I wish I'd read a reference that would teach me OpenGL through a step-by-step method. 
  • Popular Now