Jump to content
  • Advertisement
hyyou

C++ ECS : mega entity array VS many component arrays

Recommended Posts

I have recently read T-machine's Entity Component System (ECS) data structure. (link)

Its "best" version (4th iteration) can be summarized into a single image (copy from T-machine's web) :-

image.png.d88580612f8a76efc3783296f7ab0602.png

This approach also appears in a VDO 

" rel="external">
  , with slide and source code ( https://github.com/CppCon/CppCon2015/tree/master/Tutorials/Implementation of a component-based entity system in modern C++ ) .

There are many people (including me) believe that the above approach lacks data locality, because Position-1,Position-2,Position-3, ... are not stored in a contiguous array.

However, many attempts failed to elegantly make it contiguous.  (e.g. stackoverflow's link

  • I also realized that, to make it contiguous, the cost of query Entity<-->Component is unavoidably significantly higher. (I profiled)

I would like to hear that ....

I know that its depend on data access pattern (i.e. cache miss).  I still want to hear more opinion/argument about it, because I may need to rewrite a large part of my engine to make it support 30,000+ entity (personal greed).    

Thank.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Because of curiosity + stubbornness, I converted my engine to use T-machine's approaches.

Today, I find that T-machine's technique is slower by 2-3% for my game.

It is a little depressing though from the fact that T-machine's is far more difficult to implement.

Kylotan is absolutely correct. 

IMHO, it is very hard for ECS to reach 30,000 non-trivial entities (without multithread) while maintaining 60fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post some harsh criticism of the linked T-Machine article, but (along with the previous, well known series) it speaks for itself: figuring out what's wrong is a valuable learning experience that everyone deserves to make.

Just to point out the biggest problem, if components aren't the same size they cannot be stored in the same "megaarray", and if they are the same size they are wasting memory (if padded) and/or coherent access (if the array contains homogeneous "handles" of data stored elsewhere); there must be a good reason to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem can be (arguably) solved by using assemblage.      https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/58693/grouping-entities-of-the-same-component-set-into-linear-memory/58701#58701

However, this approach introduces a lot of inherent disadvantages :

  • Micro memory management is needed
  • harder to code
  • hard to remove component
  • lose some data locality of the same components
  • pooling is less efficient at entity level
  • entity type must be established before create it.

I believed the most tempting performance advantage might be that every query inside a certain entity is very fast.      However, my profiling result suggest that I was wrong again.

Oh, I used ~2 weeks to appreciate and believe this fact  (sad face)

Edited by hyyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hyyou said:

A proliferation of arrays of different aggregates of components is the opposite of a single array of heterogeneous components. Which of the two flawed approaches have you tried?

Imposing arbitrary constraints (for example, that components of entities that have a different set of components should be segregated) and then suffering the consequences (that entities cannot gain or lose components, at least in a neat way, that visiting all components of a certain type is inefficient because of noncontiguous layout and complicated due to multiple arrays, etc.) without thinking of more sophisticated techniques is a typical stylistic trait of the T-Machine blog posts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Which of the two flawed approaches have you tried?

In my flawed prototype, I mixed both of them.

Every entity is stored in a single array.  Each and every entity must use less than 1024 bytes.

In the stress test, I reserved it [Entity 1st=1024 bytes][2nd=1024]....[1024] = 30,000 contiguous block.

Ex. In some bad cases, it can be :-

  • Entity 1st= [Position  8 bytes][Velocity  16 bytes][ waste 1010 bytes ]
  • Entity 2st= [GraphicHuge 524 bytes][Position 8 bytes][ waste 492 bytes ]  ....

There are some ways to optimize it (e.g. buddy allocator), but in nutshell, it is like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, after optimizing my own ECS I can say the following:

Most performance can be gained not by how you layout components, but how by optimizing iterations. For example, if you want to iterate over physics + position at some point:

for(auto& entity : entities.WithComponents<Position, Physics>())
{
}

A primitive approach might build a dynamic list by checking all entities, (=vector), return ths & then iterate over it again.
A better solution might involve iterators to save on the dynamic allocations.
An even better solution involves building the set of entities with those components on the first call, and then just invalidate or update this cached set whenever entities are modified.

This step gave the most performance in my case, and should be pretty mandatory of you want to handle 30000 entities, which will likely have vastly different sets of components.

 

Storing the components in a contingous array actually reduced the performance at first, as some have mentioned, due to the overhead of accessing them from different places. What I actually ended up doing was putting the pointers to the components inside my cache-set to, using a templated-solution to generate a cache-structure like this

struct Cache // "generated" by template
{
	std::vector<std::tuple<Position*, Physics*>> components;  
}

The components itself are stored in a contingous array, and put into this cache. Which is, I believe, the fasted you can get when iterating over distinct sets of components, as the this cache-array is as tighly packed as possible under those circumstances, and works with the least . Note that the actual implementation is really complicated, especially the part about updating the cache (since I didn't want to rebuild it on every change), but the results sure paid off in terms of performance. I don't have the exact figures, but all optimizations together were about 40% decrease in frametime for a testset of 10000 entities with animation/static sprites & collision.

You should decide for yourself if its worth the trouble, as others have said, getting the system to be useable should be the priority. Though if done right, you can apply all those optimizations in the background w/o affecting the systems interface, so once you see a need you can still resort to optimizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Juliean

Thank!  It is consistent with the profiler result.

I always thought that the profile result is wrong, because I use stack-allocator to allocate this as return result :-

entities.WithComponents<Position>()

Copying array shouldn't very expensive, right?   I was wrong.

Thank a lot, Juliean!!!   If you didn't say it explicitly, I will ignore it .... perhaps forever.    :)  :)  :) 

Edited by hyyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hyyou said:

That's just another rewording of the unwieldy T-Machine stuff, and the answers below it tell you all you need to know:

  • "The architecture was more of a pain in the butt than naive object systems and had no measurable performance advantages over some of the more flexible designs I compared it to."
  • " What you've done is re-engineered C++ objects. The reason why this feels obvious is that if you replace the word "entity" with "class" and "component" with "member" this is a standard OOP design using mixins."

There's no silver bullet that will let you handle 30,000 heterogeneous entities without compromises. If a large number of those entities are homogeneous then you might be able to smash those, or the 'hot' data in them, into some contiguous arrays and see some significant benefit. But in the general case, what you want to do isn't really doable.

Remember there are simpler ways to get some cache-coherence benefits - store important properties inline instead of via pointers, move lesser-accessed data outside of the entities so that the 'hot' data is stored more compactly, allocate things from pools instead of via naive `new` calls, etc.

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

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Similar Content

    • By Andrew Parkes
      I am a talented 2D/3D artist with 3 years animation working experience and a Degree in Illustration and Animation. I have won a world-wide art competition hosted by SFX magazine and am looking to develop a survival game. I have some knowledge of C sharp and have notes for a survival based game with flexible storyline and PVP. Looking for developers to team up with. I can create models, animations and artwork and I have beginner knowledge of C sharp with Unity. The idea is Inventory menu based gameplay and is inspired by games like DAYZ.
      Here is some early sci-fi concept art to give you an idea of the work level. Hope to work with like minded people and create something special. email me andrewparkesanim@gmail.com.
      Developers who share the same passion please contact me, or if you have a similar project and want me to join your team email me. 
      Many thanks, Andrew.

    • By mike44
      Hi
      saw in dependency walker that my app still needs msvcp140d.dll even after disabling debug.
      What did I forget in the VS2017 release settings? After setting to multithreaded dll I get linker errors.
      Thanks
       
    • By 3dmodelerguy
      So I have been playing around with yaml-cpp as I want to use YAML for most of my game data files however I am running into some pretty big performance issues and not sure if it is something I am doing or the library itself.
      I created this code in order to test a moderately sized file:
      Player newPlayer = Player(); newPlayer.name = "new player"; newPlayer.maximumHealth = 1000; newPlayer.currentHealth = 1; Inventory newInventory; newInventory.maximumWeight = 10.9f; for (int z = 0; z < 10000; z++) { InventoryItem* newItem = new InventoryItem(); newItem->name = "Stone"; newItem->baseValue = 1; newItem->weight = 0.1f; newInventory.items.push_back(newItem); } YAML::Node newSavedGame; newSavedGame["player"] = newPlayer; newSavedGame["inventory"] = newInventory; This is where I ran into my first issue, memory consumption.
      Before I added this code, the memory usage of my game was about 22MB. After I added everything expect the YAML::Node stuff, it went up to 23MB, so far nothing unexpected. Then when I added the YAML::Node and added data to it, the memory went up to 108MB. I am not sure why when I add the class instance it only adds like 1MB of memory but then copying that data to a YAML:Node instance, it take another 85MB of memory.
      So putting that issue aside, I want want to test the performance of writing out the files. the initial attempt looked like this:
      void YamlUtility::saveAsFile(YAML::Node node, std::string filePath) { std::ofstream myfile; myfile.open(filePath); myfile << node << std::endl; myfile.close(); } To write out the file (that ends up to be about 570KB), it took about 8 seconds to do that. That seems really slow to me.
      After read the documentation a little more I decide to try a different route using the YAML::Emitter, the implemntation looked like this:
      static void buildYamlManually(std::ofstream& file, YAML::Node node) { YAML::Emitter out; out << YAML::BeginMap << YAML::Key << "player" << YAML::Value << YAML::BeginMap << YAML::Key << "name" << YAML::Value << node["player"]["name"].as<std::string>() << YAML::Key << "maximumHealth" << YAML::Value << node["player"]["maximumHealth"].as<int>() << YAML::Key << "currentHealth" << YAML::Value << node["player"]["currentHealth"].as<int>() << YAML::EndMap; out << YAML::BeginSeq; std::vector<InventoryItem*> items = node["inventory"]["items"].as<std::vector<InventoryItem*>>(); for (InventoryItem* const value : items) { out << YAML::BeginMap << YAML::Key << "name" << YAML::Value << value->name << YAML::Key << "baseValue" << YAML::Value << value->baseValue << YAML::Key << "weight" << YAML::Value << value->weight << YAML::EndMap; } out << YAML::EndSeq; out << YAML::EndMap; file << out.c_str() << std::endl; } While this did seem to improve the speed, it was still take about 7 seconds instead of 8 seconds.
      Since it has been a while since I used C++ and was not sure if this was normal, I decided to for testing just write a simple method to manually generate the YAMLin this use case, that looked something like this:
      static void buildYamlManually(std::ofstream& file, SavedGame savedGame) { file << "player: \n" << " name: " << savedGame.player.name << "\n maximumHealth: " << savedGame.player.maximumHealth << "\n currentHealth: " << savedGame.player.currentHealth << "\ninventory:" << "\n maximumWeight: " << savedGame.inventory.maximumWeight << "\n items:"; for (InventoryItem* const value : savedGame.inventory.items) { file << "\n - name: " << value->name << "\n baseValue: " << value->baseValue << "\n weight: " << value->weight; } } This wrote the same file and it took about 0.15 seconds which seemed a lot more to what I was expecting.
      While I would expect some overhead in using yaml-cpp to manage and write out YAML files, it consuming 70X+ the amount of memory and it being 40X+ slower in writing files seems really bad.
      I am not sure if I am doing something wrong with how I am using yaml-cpp that would be causing this issue or maybe it was never design to handle large files but was just wondering if anyone has any insight on what might be happening here (or an alternative to dealing with YAMLin C++)?
    • By 3dmodelerguy
      So I am trying to using Yaml as my game data files (mainly because it support comments, is a bit easier to read than JSON, and I am going to be working in these files a lot) with C++ and yaml-cpp (https://github.com/jbeder/yaml-cpp) seems like the most popular library for dealing with it however I am running into an issue when using pointers.
      Here is my code:
      struct InventoryItem { std::string name; int baseValue; float weight; }; struct Inventory { float maximumWeight; std::vector<InventoryItem*> items; }; namespace YAML { template <> struct convert<InventoryItem*> { static Node encode(const InventoryItem* inventoryItem) { Node node; node["name"] = inventoryItem->name; node["baseValue"] = inventoryItem->baseValue; node["weight"] = inventoryItem->weight; return node; } static bool decode(const Node& node, InventoryItem* inventoryItem) { // @todo validation inventoryItem->name = node["name"].as<std::string>(); inventoryItem->baseValue = node["baseValue"].as<int>(); inventoryItem->weight = node["weight"].as<float>(); return true; } }; template <> struct convert<Inventory> { static Node encode(const Inventory& inventory) { Node node; node["maximumWeight"] = inventory.maximumWeight; node["items"] = inventory.items; return node; } static bool decode(const Node& node, Inventory& inventory) { // @todo validation inventory.maximumWeight = node["maximumWeight"].as<float>(); inventory.items = node["items"].as<std::vector<InventoryItem*>>(); return true; } }; } if I just did `std::vector<InventoryItem> items` and had the encode / decode use `InventoryItem& inventoryItem` everything works fine however when I use the code above that has it as a pointer, I get the following error from code that is part of the yaml-cpp library:
      impl.h(123): error C4700: uninitialized local variable 't' used The code with the error is:
      template <typename T> struct as_if<T, void> { explicit as_if(const Node& node_) : node(node_) {} const Node& node; T operator()() const { if (!node.m_pNode) throw TypedBadConversion<T>(node.Mark()); T t; if (convert<T>::decode(node, t)) // NOTE: THIS IS THE LINE THE COMPILER ERROR IS REFERENCING return t; throw TypedBadConversion<T>(node.Mark()); } }; With my relative lack of experience in C++ and not being able to find any documentation for yaml-cpp using pointers, I am not exactly sure what is wrong with my code.
      Anyone have any ideas what I need to change with my code? 
    • By Gnollrunner
      I already asked this question on stack overflow, and they got pissed at me, down-voted me and so forth, LOL .... so I'm pretty sure the answer is NO, but I'll try again here anyway just in case..... Is there any way to get the size of a polymorphic object at run-time? I know you can create a virtual function that returns size and overload it for each child class, but I'm trying to avoid that since (a) it takes a virtual function call and I want it to be fast and (b) it's a pain to have to include the size function for every subclass. I figure since each object has a v-table their should be some way since the information is there, but perhaps there is no portable way to do it.
    • By MarcusAseth
      This is the code I have:
       //Create Window     DWORD windowStyle = WS_VISIBLE;     DWORD windowExStyle = WS_EX_OVERLAPPEDWINDOW;     SetThreadDpiAwarenessContext(DPI_AWARENESS_CONTEXT_SYSTEM_AWARE);     RECT client{ 0, 0, 100, 40 };     UINT dpi = GetDpiForSystem();     AdjustWindowRectExForDpi(&client, windowStyle, false, windowExStyle, dpi);     UINT adjustedWidth = client.right - client.left;     UINT adjustedHeight = client.bottom - client.top;     m_hwnd = CreateWindowEx(windowExStyle,                             className.c_str(),                             windowName.c_str(),                             windowStyle,                             CW_USEDEFAULT,                             CW_USEDEFAULT,                             adjustedWidth,                             adjustedHeight,                             nullptr,                             nullptr,                             m_hInstance,                             m_emu     ); The generated window has a client area of 1 pixel in height, even though I'm asking for 40. so I'm always getting 39 pixel less than what I need...can someone help me with this? x_x
    • By SeraphLance
      I've spent quite a while (and probably far longer than I actually should) trying to design an allocator system.  I've bounced ideas around to various people in the past, but never really gotten something satisfactory.
      Basically, the requirements I'm trying to target are:
        Composability -- allocators that seamlessly allocate from memory allocated by other allocators.  This helps me to do things like, for example, write an allocator that pads allocations from its parent allocator with bit patterns to detect heap corruption.  It also allows me to easily create spillovers, or optionally assert on overflow with specialized fallbacks.   Handling the fact that some allocators have different interfaces than others in an elegant way.  For example, a regular allocator might have Allocate/Deallocate, but a linear allocator can't do itemized deallocation (but can deallocate everything at once).   I want to be able to tell how much I've allocated, and how much of that is actually being used.  I also want to be able to bucket that on subsystem, but as far as I can tell, that doesn't really impact the design outside of adding a new parameter to allocate calls. Note:  I'm avoiding implementation of allocation buckets and alignment from this, since it's largely orthogonal to what I'm asking and can be done with any of the designs.
       
      To meet those three requirements, I've come up with the following solutions, all of which have significant drawbacks.
      Static Policy-Based Allocators
      I originally built this off of this talk.
      Examples;
      struct AllocBlock { std::byte* ptr; size_t size; }; class Mallocator { size_t allocatedMemory; public: Mallocator(); AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); void Deallocate(AllocBlock blk); }; template <typename BackingAllocator, size_t allocSize> class LinearAllocator : BackingAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* ptr; char* end; public: LinearAllocator() : baseMemory(BackingAllocator::Allocate(allocSize)) { /* stuff */ } AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); }; template <typename BackingAllocator, size_t allocSize> class PoolAllocator : BackingAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* currentHead; public: PoolAllocator() : baseMemory(BackingAllocator::Allocate(allocSize)) { /* stuff */ } void* Allocate(); // note the different signature. void Deallocate(void*); }; // ex: auto allocator = PoolAllocator<Mallocator, size>; Advantages:
      SFINAE gives me a pseudo-duck-typing thing.  I don't need any kind of common interfaces, and I'll get a compile-time error if I try to do something like create a LinearAllocator backed by a PoolAllocator. It's composable. Disadvantages:
      Composability is type composability, meaning every allocator I create has an independent chain of compositions.  This makes tracking memory usage pretty hard, and presumably can cause me external fragmentation issues.  I might able to get around this with some kind of singleton kung-fu, but I'm unsure as I don't really have any experience with them. Owing to the above, all of my customization points have to be template parameters because the concept relies on empty constructors.  This isn't a huge issue, but it makes defining allocators cumbersome. Dynamic Allocator Dependency
      This is probably just the strategy pattern, but then again everything involving polymorphic type composition looks like the strategy pattern to me. 😃
      Examples:
      struct AllocBlock { std::byte* ptr; size_t size; }; class Allocator { virtual AllocBlock Allocate(size_t) = 0; virtual void Deallocate(AllocBlock) = 0; }; class Mallocator : Allocator { size_t allocatedMemory; public: Mallocator(); AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); void Deallocate(AllocBlock blk); }; class LinearAllocator { Allocator* backingAllocator; AllocBlock baseMemory; char* ptr; char* end; public: LinearAllocator(Allocator* backingAllocator, size_t allocSize) : backingAllocator(backingAllocator) { baseMemory = backingAllocator->Allocate(allocSize); /* stuff */ } AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size); }; class PoolAllocator { Allocator* backingAllocator; AllocBlock baseMemory; char* currentHead; public: PoolAllocator(Allocator* backingAllocator, size_t allocSize) : backingAllocator(backingAllocator) { baseMemory = backingAllocator->Allocate(allocSize); /* stuff */ } void* Allocate(); // note the different signature. void Deallocate(void*); }; // ex: auto allocator = PoolAllocator(someGlobalMallocator, size); There's an obvious problem with the above:  Namely that PoolAllocator and LinearAllocator don't inherit from the generic Allocator interface.  They can't, because their interfaces provide different semantics.  There's to ways I can solve this:
        Inherit from Allocator anyway and assert on unsupported operations (delegates composition failure to runtime errors, which I'd rather avoid).   As above:  Don't inherit and just deal with the fact that some composability is lost (not ideal, because it means you can't do things like back a pool allocator with a linear allocator) As for the overall structure, I think it looks something like this:
      Advantages:
      Memory usage tracking is easy, since I can use the top-level mallocator(s) to keep track of total memory allocated, and all of the leaf allocators to track of used memory.  How to do that in particular is outside the scope of what I'm asking about, but I've got some ideas. I still have composability Disadvantages:
      The interface issues above.  There's no duck-typing-like mechanism to help here, and I'm strongly of the opinion that programmer errors in construction like that should fail at compile-time, not runtime. Composition on Allocated Memory instead of Allocators
      This is probably going to be somewhat buggy and poorly thought, since it's just an idea rather than something I've actually tried.
      Examples:
      struct AllocBlock { void* ptr; size_t size; std::function<void()> dealloc; } class Mallocator { size_t allocatedMemory; public: Mallocator(); AllocBlock Allocate(size_t size) { void* ptr = malloc(size); return {ptr, size, [ptr](){ free(ptr); }}; } }; class LinearAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* ptr; char* end; public: LinearAllocator(AllocBlock baseMemory) : baseMemory(baseMemory) {end = ptr = baseMemory.ptr;} AllocBlock Allocate(size_t); }; class PoolAllocator { AllocBlock baseMemory; char* head; public: PoolAllocator(AllocBlock baseMemory) : baseMemory(baseMemory) { /* stuff */ } void* Allocate(); }; // ex: auto allocator = PoolAllocator(someGlobalMallocator.Allocate(size)); I don't really like this design at first blush, but I haven't really tried it.

      Advantages:
      "Composable", since we've delegated most of what composition entails into the memory block rather than the allocator. Tracking memory is a bit more complex, but I *think* it's still doable. Disadvantages:
      Makes the interface more complex, since we have to allocate first and then pass that block into our "child" allocator. Can't do specialized deallocation (i.e. stack deallocation) since the memory blocks don't know anything about their parent allocation pool.  I might be able to get around this though.  
      I've done a lot of research against all of the source-available engines I can find, and it seems like most of them either have very small allocator systems or simply don't try to make them composable at all (CryEngine does this, for example).  That said, it seems like something that should have a lot of good examples, but I can't find a whole lot.  Does anyone have any good feedback/suggestions on this, or is composability in general just a pipe dream?
    • By RobMaddison
      Hi
      I’ve been working on a game engine for years and I’ve recently come back to it after a couple of years break.  Because my engine uses DirectX9.0c I thought maybe it would be a good idea to upgrade it to DX11. I then installed Windows 10 and starting tinkering around with the engine trying to refamiliarise myself with all the code.
      It all seems to work ok in the new OS but there’s something I’ve noticed that has caused a massive slowdown in frame rate. My engine has a relatively sophisticated terrain system which includes the ability to paint roads onto it, ala CryEngine. The roads are spline curves and built up with polygons matching the terrain surface. It used to work perfectly but I’ve noticed that when I’m dynamically adding the roads, which involves moving the spline curve control points around the surface of the terrain, the frame rate comes to a grinding halt.
      There’s some relatively complex processing going on each time the mouse moves - the road either side of the control point(s) being moved, is reconstructed in real time so you can position and bend the road precisely. On my previous OS, which was Win2k Pro, this worked really smoothly and in release mode there was barely any slow down in frame rate, but now it’s unusable. As part of the road reconstruction, I lock the vertex and index buffers and refill them with the new values so my question is, on windows 10 using DX9, is anyone aware of any locking issues? I’m aware that there can be contention when locking buffers dynamically but I’m locking with LOCK_DISCARD and this has never been an issue before.
      Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    • By LukeCassa005
      I'm writing a small 3D Vulkan game engine using C++. I'm working in a team, and the other members really don't know almost anything about C++. About three years ago i found this new programming language called D wich seems very interesting, as it's very similar to C++. My idea was to implement core systems like rendering, math, serialization and so on using C++ and then wrapping all with a D framework, easier to use and less complicated. Is it worth it or I should stick only to C++ ? Does it have less performance compared to a pure c++ application ?
    • By MarcusAseth
      Hi guys, I'm trying to learn this stuff but running into some problems 😕
      I've compiled my .hlsl into a header file which contains the global variable with the precompiled shader data:
      //... // Approximately 83 instruction slots used #endif const BYTE g_vs[] = { 68, 88, 66, 67, 143, 82, 13, 236, 152, 133, 219, 113, 173, 135, 18, 87, 122, 208, 124, 76, 1, 0, 0, 0, 16, 76, 0, 0, 6, 0, //.... And now following the "Compiling at build time to header files" example at this msdn link , I've included the header files in my main.cpp and I'm trying to create the vertex shader like this:
      hr = g_d3dDevice->CreateVertexShader(g_vs, sizeof(g_vs), nullptr, &g_d3dVertexShader); if (FAILED(hr)) { return -1; } and this is failing, entering the if and returing -1.
      Can someone point out what I'm doing wrong? 😕 
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      631352
    • Total Posts
      2999483
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!