GuyWithBeard

OpenGL Design advice for a front-end for modern graphics APIs

Recommended Posts

I am looking to replace my current DX11-only renderer with something better and to make it easier to support many graphics APIs I am writing a common "front-end" API for the graphics APIs I want to support. The renderer is layered and looks a bit like this (I assume this is a farily common way to organize things):

  1. First there is the high-level renderer, ie. the API that the rest of the game communicates with. It contains concepts such as scene-graphs, meshes, materials, cameras, lights etc.
  2. Below the high-level renderer sits the front-end API for the actual graphics APIs we want to target. This is an API that contains (or can emulate) all important features of the graphics APIs, such as devices, textures, shaders, buffers (vb, ib, cb), pipeline state etc.
  3. Below the front-end API are the actual graphics APIs (DX11, DX12, OpenGL, Vulkan, Metal, libGCM etc). These are loaded in as plugins an can be switched during runtime.

I started writing the front-end API with the mindset that I'll target DX11 first and perhaps add DX12 and Vulkan support later. However, this seems to be a very bad idea especially since I have the rare opportunity to rewrite my whole renderer without having to worry about shipping a game right now. Most people seem to agree that it is better to write the front-end to look like the modern APIs and the emulate (or in some cases simply ignore) the modern-only features for the older APIs.

My question is this: What features of the modern APIs should I expose through the front-end API? I would like to make somewhat good use of DX12 and Vulkan so consider those as the main back-ends for now. In my current version of the API I already moved all state into a PSO-like object which will be the only way to set state, even on older APIs. However, after looking into DX12/Vulkan a bit more (note that I still only have a few hours worth of experience with either) it seems that there are other new object types that ideally should be exposed through the front-end, such as command lists, queues, fences, barriers, semaphores, descriptors and descriptor sets + various pools. What about these? Anything else? Does it make sense to try to wrap them up as they are and can DX12's concepts be mapped to Vulkan's concepts or do I have to abstract some of these into completely new concepts?

Thanks for your time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hodgman for the detailed response! Incidentally I found an interesting video on Vulkan yesterday at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkXa4RiERu8

Especially the first and last talks are very interesting. Around the four minute mark there is a slide on what Xenko's renderer exposes. Seems like they went with exposing descriptor sets too, but don't really explain why, just "you can't get around it", and that they went with the Vulkan approach of descriptor sets rather than the DX12 approach (which I cannot comment on at all yet). I also very much like the PSO approach even on older hardware so I think I am going to make them first class objects in the front-end too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they went with exposing descriptor sets too, but don't really explain why, just "you can't get around it",
Yeah, "we can't get around [exposing these as first class concepts]" is an interesting throw-away... I guess it's in the context of wanting to redesign as a "next gen" API.

I mentioned above a way to get the benefits of PSO's without making them first class -- a stateless API built around "draw items" is analogous to PSO's, but doesn't have to expose a PSO-like interface. You can expose a D3D11 or even D3D9 style interface to the draw-item compiler.

To implement a D3D11 style resource binding model, you can create a non-shader visible descriptor heap, and pre-create all your resource-view objects on it (similar to pre-creating D3D11 resource-view objects). Then at draw-submission time (or draw-item creation time), you can copy the sparse collection of views from that non-shader-visible heap into a contiguous table in a shader-visible heap. You manage those tables with a ring-buffer so that you can dynamically create them every frame. Doing it this way won't get you to full benefits of letting the user create static/reusable descriptor tables, but will still be faster than D3D11/GL :)

I actually support both -- my "resource lists" are a simpler abstraction than the entire descriptor model (which is quite low-level and exposes many tricky details, such as CPU<->GPU data synchronisation to its users...), and at creation time my users can specify whether they want an immutable one or a mutable one. Immutable ones can be mapped to pre-created/reusable descriptor tables, while mutable ones can use something closer to the D3D11 emulation system described above, where the tables are dynamically constructed at draw submission time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how hard to would be to just use Vulkan, and then make a Vulkan -> D3D12, or Vulkan -> D3D11, etc... implementation.  I wonder if anyone's working on that...

If your interface is well designed it would be trivial.  In the engines I've written it would require writing either a plugin or a new set of .h and .cpp files to implement the new API in wrappers and away you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how hard to would be to just use Vulkan, and then make a Vulkan -> D3D12, or Vulkan -> D3D11, etc... implementation.  I wonder if anyone's working on that...

If your interface is well designed it would be trivial.  In the engines I've written it would require writing either a plugin or a new set of .h and .cpp files to implement the new API in wrappers and away you go.
I think he means emulating the Vulkan API as is, on top of other APIs.
Sure, it's possible, but performance would not be great. Real ports to each API are best for performance.

Looking into the future, implementing old APIs on top of Vulkan is totally feasible though, and would be a cheap way to port say, D3D11 games to a new platform.

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


  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628403
    • Total Posts
      2982483
  • Similar Content

    • By test opty
      Hi all,
       
      I'm starting OpenGL using a tut on the Web. But at this point I would like to know the primitives needed for creating a window using OpenGL. So on Windows and using MS VS 2017, what is the simplest code required to render a window with the title of "First Rectangle", please?
       
       
    • By DejayHextrix
      Hi, New here. 
      I need some help. My fiance and I like to play this mobile game online that goes by real time. Her and I are always working but when we have free time we like to play this game. We don't always got time throughout the day to Queue Buildings, troops, Upgrades....etc.... 
      I was told to look into DLL Injection and OpenGL/DirectX Hooking. Is this true? Is this what I need to learn? 
      How do I read the Android files, or modify the files, or get the in-game tags/variables for the game I want? 
      Any assistance on this would be most appreciated. I been everywhere and seems no one knows or is to lazy to help me out. It would be nice to have assistance for once. I don't know what I need to learn. 
      So links of topics I need to learn within the comment section would be SOOOOO.....Helpful. Anything to just get me started. 
      Thanks, 
      Dejay Hextrix 
    • 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.
  • Popular Now