• 9
• 10
• 10
• 11
• 15
• Similar Content

• Good evening everyone!

I was wondering if there is something equivalent of  GL_NV_blend_equation_advanced for AMD?
Basically I'm trying to find more compatible version of it.

Thank you!

• Hello guys,

How do I know? Why does wavefront not show for me?
I already checked I have non errors yet.

And my download (mega.nz) should it is original but I tried no success...
- Add blend source and png file here I have tried tried,.....

PS: Why is our community not active? I wait very longer. Stop to lie me!
Thanks !

• I wasn't sure if this would be the right place for a topic like this so sorry if it isn't.
I'm currently working on a project for Uni using FreeGLUT to make a simple solar system simulation. I've got to the point where I've implemented all the planets and have used a Scene Graph to link them all together. The issue I'm having with now though is basically the planets and moons orbit correctly at their own orbit speeds.
I'm not really experienced with using matrices for stuff like this so It's likely why I can't figure out how exactly to get it working. This is where I'm applying the transformation matrices, as well as pushing and popping them. This is within the Render function that every planet including the sun and moons will have and run.
if (tag != "Sun") { glRotatef(orbitAngle, orbitRotation.X, orbitRotation.Y, orbitRotation.Z); } glPushMatrix(); glTranslatef(position.X, position.Y, position.Z); glRotatef(rotationAngle, rotation.X, rotation.Y, rotation.Z); glScalef(scale.X, scale.Y, scale.Z); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, mesh->indiceCount, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, mesh->indices); if (tag != "Sun") { glPopMatrix(); } The "If(tag != "Sun")" parts are my attempts are getting the planets to orbit correctly though it likely isn't the way I'm meant to be doing it. So I was wondering if someone would be able to help me? As I really don't have an idea on what I would do to get it working. Using the if statement is truthfully the closest I've got to it working but there are still weird effects like the planets orbiting faster then they should depending on the number of planets actually be updated/rendered.

• Hello everyone,
I have problem with texture

• Hello everyone
For @80bserver8 nice job - I have found Google search. How did you port from Javascript WebGL to C# OpenTK.?
I have been searched Google but it shows f***ing Unity 3D. I really want know how do I understand I want start with OpenTK But I want know where is porting of Javascript and C#?

Thanks!

OpenGL A practical approach to pseudo instancing for OpenGL ES 2.0?

This topic is 743 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

Recommended Posts

Okay, the reason I'm asking about pseudo instancing is because last I checked, OpenGL ES 2.0 devices still dominate the market.

Sources:

*shoot, I can't find a single article on the statistics of iOS devices capable of using 3.0+*

Eventually, OpenGL ES 3.x will overtake the marketshare, and ES 2.0 only devices will dwindle as it did with ES 1.1 and below.  Until that day comes along, I want to consider the most practical approaches for pseudo instancing where hardware assisted instancing is not supported.  My engine is crossplatform, and I intend for it to work on iOS, Android and Blackberry.  Ever since iPhone 5S, iPad Air/Mini w/ Retina, iOS has supported OpenGL ES 3.0 and also Blackberry since the Z30.  So it seems that it's becoming easier to get away with having an ES 3.0 only game engine, but I'd rather not do that at the moment.

So, what is my actual question?  I'm glad you asked.  When I think of two implementations of pseudo instancing, two things come to mind:

1. Use separate draw calls in a loop for each mesh and use an array and index to access attributes (not literal vertex attributes) related to that instance.

2. Use a dynamic VBO and encode the instance data into the vertex structure in order to limit everything to one draw call.

Example:

struct PseudoInstanceVertex
{
/* Standard vertex attributes */
vec3f position;
vec3f normal;
vec4f diffuse;
vec2f texcoord;
...

/* Instance vertex attributes */
vec3f rotation;
vec3f translation;
...
}


Then for each geometric shape, update per frame.

So, which one do you think is better?  My assumption is that #1 would be best suited for static geometry like trees in a forest that are primarily stationary and generally do not move, and that #2 would be best suited for dynamic geometry such as NeHe style butterflies made up of two procedurally generated triangles.  #2 would also have a bigger memory requirement and #1 is a bit heavier on the CPU.  I'm having a bit of trouble deciding which one has the better tradeoff.  So, any ideas?  Thanks.

Shogun.

Share on other sites

It's going to depend largely on the size of the mesh, I think. Option #2 is definitely better for particles/butterflies, and I reckon it'll continue to be better even up to a couple of hundred triangles and maybe much more because draw calls can be so very expensive on mobile devices.

There is always option #3. Create a static VBO in which your mesh is duplicated say 16 times. Add an instance index via a vertex attribute. Then you can render your mesh up to 16 times in a single render call by having each vertex transform itself by looking up into an uniform array.

Still, I would generally default to option #2 until it's a known bottleneck.