• Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By fleissi
      Hey guys!

      I'm new here and I recently started developing my own rendering engine. It's open source, based on OpenGL/DirectX and C++.
      The full source code is hosted on github:
      https://github.com/fleissna/flyEngine

      I would appreciate if people with experience in game development / engine desgin could take a look at my source code. I'm looking for honest, constructive criticism on how to improve the engine.
      I'm currently writing my master's thesis in computer science and in the recent year I've gone through all the basics about graphics programming, learned DirectX and OpenGL, read some articles on Nvidia GPU Gems, read books and integrated some of this stuff step by step into the engine.

      I know about the basics, but I feel like there is some missing link that I didn't get yet to merge all those little pieces together.

      Features I have so far:
      - Dynamic shader generation based on material properties
      - Dynamic sorting of meshes to be renderd based on shader and material
      - Rendering large amounts of static meshes
      - Hierarchical culling (detail + view frustum)
      - Limited support for dynamic (i.e. moving) meshes
      - Normal, Parallax and Relief Mapping implementations
      - Wind animations based on vertex displacement
      - A very basic integration of the Bullet physics engine
      - Procedural Grass generation
      - Some post processing effects (Depth of Field, Light Volumes, Screen Space Reflections, God Rays)
      - Caching mechanisms for textures, shaders, materials and meshes

      Features I would like to have:
      - Global illumination methods
      - Scalable physics
      - Occlusion culling
      - A nice procedural terrain generator
      - Scripting
      - Level Editing
      - Sound system
      - Optimization techniques

      Books I have so far:
      - Real-Time Rendering Third Edition
      - 3D Game Programming with DirectX 11
      - Vulkan Cookbook (not started yet)

      I hope you guys can take a look at my source code and if you're really motivated, feel free to contribute :-)
      There are some videos on youtube that demonstrate some of the features:
      Procedural grass on the GPU
      Procedural Terrain Engine
      Quadtree detail and view frustum culling

      The long term goal is to turn this into a commercial game engine. I'm aware that this is a very ambitious goal, but I'm sure it's possible if you work hard for it.

      Bye,

      Phil
    • By tj8146
      I have attached my project in a .zip file if you wish to run it for yourself.
      I am making a simple 2d top-down game and I am trying to run my code to see if my window creation is working and to see if my timer is also working with it. Every time I run it though I get errors. And when I fix those errors, more come, then the same errors keep appearing. I end up just going round in circles.  Is there anyone who could help with this? 
       
      Errors when I build my code:
      1>Renderer.cpp 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.h(15): error C2039: 'string': is not a member of 'std' 1>c:\program files (x86)\windows kits\10\include\10.0.16299.0\ucrt\stddef.h(18): note: see declaration of 'std' 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.h(15): error C2061: syntax error: identifier 'string' 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.cpp(28): error C2511: 'bool Game::Rendering::initialize(int,int,bool,std::string)': overloaded member function not found in 'Game::Rendering' 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.h(9): note: see declaration of 'Game::Rendering' 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.cpp(35): error C2597: illegal reference to non-static member 'Game::Rendering::window' 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.cpp(36): error C2597: illegal reference to non-static member 'Game::Rendering::window' 1>c:\users\documents\opengl\game\game\renderer.cpp(43): error C2597: illegal reference to non-static member 'Game::Rendering::window' 1>Done building project "Game.vcxproj" -- FAILED. ========== Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ==========  
       
      Renderer.cpp
      #include <GL/glew.h> #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> #include "Renderer.h" #include "Timer.h" #include <iostream> namespace Game { GLFWwindow* window; /* Initialize the library */ Rendering::Rendering() { mClock = new Clock; } Rendering::~Rendering() { shutdown(); } bool Rendering::initialize(uint width, uint height, bool fullscreen, std::string window_title) { if (!glfwInit()) { return -1; } /* Create a windowed mode window and its OpenGL context */ window = glfwCreateWindow(640, 480, "Hello World", NULL, NULL); if (!window) { glfwTerminate(); return -1; } /* Make the window's context current */ glfwMakeContextCurrent(window); glViewport(0, 0, (GLsizei)width, (GLsizei)height); glOrtho(0, (GLsizei)width, (GLsizei)height, 0, 1, -1); glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION); glLoadIdentity(); glfwSwapInterval(1); glEnable(GL_SMOOTH); glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); glEnable(GL_BLEND); glDepthFunc(GL_LEQUAL); glHint(GL_PERSPECTIVE_CORRECTION_HINT, GL_NICEST); glEnable(GL_TEXTURE_2D); glLoadIdentity(); return true; } bool Rendering::render() { /* Loop until the user closes the window */ if (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) return false; /* Render here */ mClock->reset(); glfwPollEvents(); if (mClock->step()) { glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); glfwSwapBuffers(window); mClock->update(); } return true; } void Rendering::shutdown() { glfwDestroyWindow(window); glfwTerminate(); } GLFWwindow* Rendering::getCurrentWindow() { return window; } } Renderer.h
      #pragma once namespace Game { class Clock; class Rendering { public: Rendering(); ~Rendering(); bool initialize(uint width, uint height, bool fullscreen, std::string window_title = "Rendering window"); void shutdown(); bool render(); GLFWwindow* getCurrentWindow(); private: GLFWwindow * window; Clock* mClock; }; } Timer.cpp
      #include <GL/glew.h> #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> #include <time.h> #include "Timer.h" namespace Game { Clock::Clock() : mTicksPerSecond(50), mSkipTics(1000 / mTicksPerSecond), mMaxFrameSkip(10), mLoops(0) { mLastTick = tick(); } Clock::~Clock() { } bool Clock::step() { if (tick() > mLastTick && mLoops < mMaxFrameSkip) return true; return false; } void Clock::reset() { mLoops = 0; } void Clock::update() { mLastTick += mSkipTics; mLoops++; } clock_t Clock::tick() { return clock(); } } TImer.h
      #pragma once #include "Common.h" namespace Game { class Clock { public: Clock(); ~Clock(); void update(); bool step(); void reset(); clock_t tick(); private: uint mTicksPerSecond; ufloat mSkipTics; uint mMaxFrameSkip; uint mLoops; uint mLastTick; }; } Common.h
      #pragma once #include <cstdio> #include <cstdlib> #include <ctime> #include <cstring> #include <cmath> #include <iostream> namespace Game { typedef unsigned char uchar; typedef unsigned short ushort; typedef unsigned int uint; typedef unsigned long ulong; typedef float ufloat; }  
      Game.zip
    • By lxjk
      Hi guys,
      There are many ways to do light culling in tile-based shading. I've been playing with this idea for a while, and just want to throw it out there.
      Because tile frustums are general small compared to light radius, I tried using cone test to reduce false positives introduced by commonly used sphere-frustum test.
      On top of that, I use distance to camera rather than depth for near/far test (aka. sliced by spheres).
      This method can be naturally extended to clustered light culling as well.
      The following image shows the general ideas

       
      Performance-wise I get around 15% improvement over sphere-frustum test. You can also see how a single light performs as the following: from left to right (1) standard rendering of a point light; then tiles passed the test of (2) sphere-frustum test; (3) cone test; (4) spherical-sliced cone test
       

       
      I put the details in my blog post (https://lxjk.github.io/2018/03/25/Improve-Tile-based-Light-Culling-with-Spherical-sliced-Cone.html), GLSL source code included!
       
      Eric
    • By Fadey Duh
      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!
    • By Jens Eckervogt
      Hello guys, 
       
      Please tell me! 
      How do I know? Why does wavefront not show for me?
      I already checked I have non errors yet.
      using OpenTK; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.IO; using System.Text; namespace Tutorial_08.net.sourceskyboxer { public class WaveFrontLoader { private static List<Vector3> inPositions; private static List<Vector2> inTexcoords; private static List<Vector3> inNormals; private static List<float> positions; private static List<float> texcoords; private static List<int> indices; public static RawModel LoadObjModel(string filename, Loader loader) { inPositions = new List<Vector3>(); inTexcoords = new List<Vector2>(); inNormals = new List<Vector3>(); positions = new List<float>(); texcoords = new List<float>(); indices = new List<int>(); int nextIdx = 0; using (var reader = new StreamReader(File.Open("Contents/" + filename + ".obj", FileMode.Open), Encoding.UTF8)) { string line = reader.ReadLine(); int i = reader.Read(); while (true) { string[] currentLine = line.Split(); if (currentLine[0] == "v") { Vector3 pos = new Vector3(float.Parse(currentLine[1]), float.Parse(currentLine[2]), float.Parse(currentLine[3])); inPositions.Add(pos); if (currentLine[1] == "t") { Vector2 tex = new Vector2(float.Parse(currentLine[1]), float.Parse(currentLine[2])); inTexcoords.Add(tex); } if (currentLine[1] == "n") { Vector3 nom = new Vector3(float.Parse(currentLine[1]), float.Parse(currentLine[2]), float.Parse(currentLine[3])); inNormals.Add(nom); } } if (currentLine[0] == "f") { Vector3 pos = inPositions[0]; positions.Add(pos.X); positions.Add(pos.Y); positions.Add(pos.Z); Vector2 tc = inTexcoords[0]; texcoords.Add(tc.X); texcoords.Add(tc.Y); indices.Add(nextIdx); ++nextIdx; } reader.Close(); return loader.loadToVAO(positions.ToArray(), texcoords.ToArray(), indices.ToArray()); } } } } } And It have tried other method but it can't show for me.  I am mad now. Because any OpenTK developers won't help me.
      Please help me how do I fix.

      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 !
  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

OpenGL Best way to handle multiple lights

This topic is 717 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hi there,

I am currently in the process of developing a game engine and I am now at the point where I am going to implement lighting.

I have done lighting before, but wanted some input on the best way to handle multiple lights in a FORWARD RENDERER (I will implement Deferred later on).

(Currently using OpenGL 3.3)

There are 2 ways I can think of:

1 - Have a shader per light type and draw the mesh for each of the different lights, using each of the shaders

2 - Upload an array of lights into a single shader, and do a single draw of the mesh looping over the lights each frame


Can anyone provide me with some information regard the performance of the two methods, or any alternate methods that would be better than the ones provided.


Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

If the result of my google-fu-ing is correct, OGL 3.3 is basicly targeting D3D10 level hardware, so Shader Model 4 equivalent GLSL is supported, meaning that there is no upper limit on the instruction count in one shader. In this case the second option will be the winner. With the first one you have to render every mesh N times if you have N lights in your scene, which gets really expensive really fast, and wastes a lot of resources (from the CPU side you have to send multiple draw commands per mesh, on the GPU side every pipeline stage would do the same thing, apart from the pixel shader, each time you render with a different light). The first option was what we used before SM4 hardware, where the length of the shaders were limited, it was basicly the reason why deferred rendering got so popular. (With N light and M meshes on SM3 level hardware you needed N*M draw calls with forward rendering, but only N+M with deferred.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the result of my google-fu-ing is correct, OGL 3.3 is basicly targeting D3D10 level hardware, so Shader Model 4 equivalent GLSL is supported, meaning that there is no upper limit on the instruction count in one shader. In this case the second option will be the winner. With the first one you have to render every mesh N times if you have N lights in your scene, which gets really expensive really fast, and wastes a lot of resources (from the CPU side you have to send multiple draw commands per mesh, on the GPU side every pipeline stage would do the same thing, apart from the pixel shader, each time you render with a different light). The first option was what we used before SM4 hardware, where the length of the shaders were limited, it was basicly the reason why deferred rendering got so popular. (With N light and M meshes on SM3 level hardware you needed N*M draw calls with forward rendering, but only N+M with deferred.)

 

Hi , thanks for the reply.

 

This is what I thought, just wanted to make sure  :P

 

Although, I read somewhere that looping or branching in shaders is not very efficient. Is this true and would it cause an issue using method 2?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming you're using shader based lights, and not hardware (which is limited), you'll find yourself running into problems with multiple lights in forward rendering.

For simple scenes, the forward rendering technique will be fast with lighting. But as you increase in the amount of lights in the scene along with geometry, you'll start slogging through a marsh of complexity.


To the related note:

It's pretty common to upload a list of effecting lights per object. Or to test against all lights within the scene or frustum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 -Upload an array of lights into a single shader, and do a single draw of the mesh looping over the lights each frame


A modern variation on this would be tiled forward rendering or "Forward+", where you iterate over a list of lights per screen tile instead of per mesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 -Upload an array of lights into a single shader, and do a single draw of the mesh looping over the lights each frame


A modern variation on this would be tiled forward rendering or "Forward+", where you iterate over a list of lights per screen tile instead of per mesh.

 

I think you'd need compute shaders for that, which aren't available at the GL level he is targeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 -Upload an array of lights into a single shader, and do a single draw of the mesh looping over the lights each frame


A modern variation on this would be tiled forward rendering or "Forward+", where you iterate over a list of lights per screen tile instead of per mesh.

 

I think you'd need compute shaders for that, which aren't available at the GL level he is targeting.

 

 

Compute shaders in general can be simulated on old GL and DX levels with a little effort (although you need shaders at least). Use pixel shaders to do the compute shader work, receive all input you need from textures which don't contain image data and instead whatever application data you need, and set up render targets such that your pixel shaders output the stuff in some kind of format you can read from later. Of course, more expensive and restricted than actual compute shaders, but if you want to do stuff on the GPU and don't have compute available it often still is an easy performance win (for particle systems for example). 

 

Would be interesting to see those lighting and light culling algorithms applied to something like WebGL (if it is possible at all, given the limitations).

Edited by agleed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement