I have some vertex data. Positions, normals, texture coordinates. I probably loaded it from a .obj file or some other format. Maybe I'm drawing a cube. But each piece of vertex data has its own index. Can I render this mesh data using OpenGL/Direct3D?
In the most general sense, no. OpenGL and Direct3D only allow one index per vertex; the index fetches from each stream of vertex data. Therefore, every unique combination of components must have its own separate index.
So if you have a cube, where each face has its own normal, you will need to replicate the position and normal data a lot. You will need 24 positions and 24 normals, even though the cube will only have 8 unique positions and 6 unique normals.
Your best bet is to simply accept that your data will be larger. A great many model formats will use multiple indices; you will need to fixup this vertex data before you can render with it. Many mesh loading tools, such as Open Asset Importer, will perform this fixup for you.
It should also be noted that most meshes are not cubes. Most meshes are smooth across the vast majority of vertices, only occasionally having different normals/texture coordinates/etc. So while this often comes up for simple geometric shapes, real models rarely have substantial amounts of vertex duplication.
GL 3.x and D3D10
For D3D10/OpenGL 3.x-class hardware, it is possible to avoid performing fixup and use multiple indexed attributes directly. However, be advised that this will likely decrease rendering performance.
The following discussion will use the OpenGL terminology, but Direct3D v10 and above has equivalent functionality.
The idea is to manually access the different vertex attributes from the vertex shader. Instead of sending the vertex attributes directly, the attributes that are passed are actually the indices for that particular vertex. The vertex shader then uses the indices to access the actual attribute through one or more buffer textures.
Attributes can be stored in multiple buffer textures or all within one. If the latter is used, then the shader will need an offset to add to each index in order to find the corresponding attribute's start index in the buffer.
Regular vertex attributes can be compressed in many ways. Buffer textures have fewer means of compression, allowing only a relatively limited number of vertex formats (via the image formats they support).
Please note again that any of these techniques may decrease overall vertex processing performance. Therefore, it should only be used in the most memory-limited of circumstances, after all other options for compression or optimization have been exhausted.
OpenGL ES 3.0 provides buffer textures as well. Higher OpenGL versions allow you to read buffer objects more directly via SSBOs rather than buffer textures, which might have better performance characteristics.
I found a way that allows you to reduce this sort of repetition that runs a bit contrary to some of the statements made in the other answer (but doesn't specifically fit the question asked here). It does however address my question which was thought to be a repeat of this question.
I just learned about Interpolation qualifiers. Specifically "flat". It's my understanding that putting the flat qualifier on your vertex shader output causes only the provoking vertex to pass it's values to the fragment shader.
This means for the situation described in this quote:
So if you have a cube, where each face has its own normal, you will need to replicate the position and normal data a lot. You will need 24 positions and 24 normals, even though the cube will only have 8 unique positions and 6 unique normals.
You can have 8 vertexes, 6 of which contain the unique normals and 2 of normal values are disregarded, so long as you carefully order your primitives indices such that the "provoking vertex" contains the normal data you want to apply to the entire face.
EDIT: My understanding of how it works:
Related
I have seen demos on WebGL that
color rectangular surface
attach textures to the rectangles
draw wireframes
have semitransparent textures
What I do not understand is how to combine these effects into a single program, and how to interact with objects to change their look.
Suppose I want to create a scene with all the above, and have the ability to change the color of any rectangle, or change the texture.
I am trying to understand the organization of the code. Here are some short, related questions:
I can create a vertex buffer with corresponding color buffer. Can I have some rectangles with texture and some without?
If not, I have to create one vertex buffer for all objects with colors, and another with textures. Can I attach a different texture to each rectangle in a vector?
For a case with some rectangles with colors, and others with textures, it requires two different shader programs. All the demos I see have only one, but clearly more complicated programs have multiple. How do you switch between shaders?
How to draw wireframe on and off? Can it be combined with textures? In other words, is it possible to write a shader that can turn features like wireframe on and off with a flag, or does it take two different calls to two different shaders?
All the demos I have seen use an index buffer with triangles. Is Quads no longer supported in WebGL? Obviously for some things triangles would be needed, but if I have a bunch of rectangles it would be nice not to have to create an index of triangles.
For all three of the above scenarios, if I want to change the points, the color, the texture, or the transparency, am I correct in understanding the glSubBuffer will allow replacing data currently in the buffer with new data.
Is it reasonable to have a single object maintaining these kinds of objects and updating color and textures, or is this not a good design?
The question you ask is not just about WebGL, but also about OpenGL and 3D.
The most used way to interact is setting attributes at the start and uniforms at the start and on the run.
In general, answer to all of your questions is "use engine".
Imagine it like you have javascript, CPU based lang, then you have WebGL, which is like a library of stuff for JS that allows low level comunication with GPU (remember, low level), and then you have shader which is GPU program you must provide, but it works only with specific data.
Do anything that is more then "simple" requires a tool, that will allow you to skip using WebGL directly (and very often also write shaders directly). The tool we call engine. Engine usually binds together some set of abilities and skips the others (difference betwen 2D and 3D engine for example). Engine functions call some WebGL preset functions with specific order, so you must not ever touch WebGL API again. Engine also provides very complicated logic to build only single pair, or few pairs of shaders, based just on few simple engine api calls. The reason is that during entire program, swapping shader program cost is heavy.
Your questions
I can create a vertex buffer with corresponding color buffer. Can I
have some rectangles with texture and some without? If not, I have to
create one vertex buffer for all objects with colors, and another with
textures. Can I attach a different texture to each rectangle in a
vector?
Lets have a buffer, we call vertex buffer. We put various data in vertex buffer. Data doesnt go as individuals, but as sets. Each unique data in set, we call attribute. The attribute can has any meaning for its vertex that vertex shader or fragment shader code decides.
If we have buffer full of data for triangles, it is possible to set for example attribute that says if specific vertex should texture the triangle or not and do the texturing logic in the shader. Anyway I think that data size of attributes for each vertex must be equal (so the textured triangles will eat same size as nontextured).
For a case with some rectangles with colors, and others with textures,
it requires two different shader programs. All the demos I see have
only one, but clearly more complicated programs have multiple. How do
you switch between shaders?
Not true, even very complicated programs might have only one pair of shaders (one WebGL program). But still it is possible to change program on the run:
https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/latest/1.0/#5.14.9
WebGL API function useProgram
How to draw wireframe on and off? Can it be combined with textures? In
other words, is it possible to write a shader that can turn features
like wireframe on and off with a flag, or does it take two different
calls to two different shaders?
WebGL API allows to draw in wireframe mode. It is shader program independent option. You can switch it with each draw call. Anyway it is also possible to write shader that will draw as wireframe and control it with flag (flag might be both, uniform or attribute based).
All the demos I have seen use an index buffer with triangles. Is Quads
no longer supported in WebGL? Obviously for some things triangles
would be needed, but if I have a bunch of rectangles it would be nice
not to have to create an index of triangles.
WebGL supports only Quads and triangles. I guess it is because without quads, shaders are more simple.
For all three of the above scenarios, if I want to change the points,
the color, the texture, or the transparency, am I correct in
understanding the glSubBuffer will allow replacing data currently in
the buffer with new data.
I would say it is rare to update buffer data on the run. It slows a program a lot. glSubBuffer is not in WebGL (different name???). Anyway dont use it ;)
Is it reasonable to have a single object maintaining these kinds of
objects and updating color and textures, or is this not a good design?
Yes, it is called Scene graph and is widely used and might be also combined with other techniques like display list.
I'm implementing a 2D game with lots of independent rectangular game pieces of various dimensions. The dimensions of each piece do not change between frames. Most of the pieces will display an image and share the same fragment shader. I am new to WebGL and it is not clear to me what the best strategy is for managing vertex buffers in regard to performance for this situation.
Is it better to use a single vertex buffer (quad) to represent all of the game's pieces and then rescale those vertices in the vertex shader for each piece? Or, should I define a separate static vertex buffer for each piece?
The GPU is a state machine, switching states is expensive(even more when done through WebGL because of the additional layer of checks introduced by the WebGL implementation) so binding vertex buffers is expensive.
Its good practice to reduce API calls to a minimum.
Even when having multiple distinct objects you still want to use a single vertex buffer and use the offset parameter of the drawArrays or drawElements methods.
Here is a list of API calls ordered by decreasing expensiveness(top is most expensive):
FrameBuffer
Program
Texture binds
Vertex format
Vertex bindings
Uniform updates
For more information on this you can watch this great talk Beyond Porting: How Modern OpenGL can Radically Reduce Driver Overhead by Cass Everitt and John McDonald, this is also where the list above comes from.
While these benchmarks were done on Nvidia hardware its a good guideline for AMD and Intel graphics hardware as well.
Using webgl I need to perform 3 passes to render my scene. Each pass runs the same geometry and shaders but has differing values for some uniforms and textures.
I seem to have two choices. Have a single "program" and set all of the uniforms and textures for each pass. Or have 3 "programs" each containing the same shaders, and set all the necessary uniforms/shaders once per program, and then just switch programs for each pass. This means that I will do one useProgram call per pass instead of man setUniform calls for each pass.
Is this second technique likely to be faster as it will avoid very many setuniform calls, or is changing the program very expensive? I've done some trials but with the very simple geometry I have at the moment I don't see any difference in performance because setup costs overwhelm any differences.
Is there any reason to prefer one technique over the other?
Just send different values via glUniform if the shader programs are the same.
Switching between programs is generally slower than change value of uniform.
Anyway Uber Shader Program (with list of uniforms like useLighting, useAlphaMap) in most cases aren't good.
#gman
We are talking about WebGL (GLES 2.0) where we don't have UBO. (uniform buffer object)
#top
Summing try to avoid rebinding shader programs (but it's not end of the world) and don't create one uber shader!
When you have large amouts of textures to rebind, texture atlasing should be the fastest solution, so you don't need to rebind textures, don't need to rebind programs. Textures can be switched by modifying uniforms representing texCoord offsets.
Modifying such uniforms can be optimized even further:
You should consider moving frequently modified uniforms to attributes. Usualy their data source are provided using attribPointers but you can also use constant values when they are disabled. Instead of unformXXX() use attribXXX() functions to specify their constant values.
I think best example is light position. Normaly you'd have to specify uniform values for it every time light position changes to ALL programs that make use of it. In contrast, when using 'attributed' uniforms you can specify attribute value once globaly when your light moves.
-pros:
This method is best suited when you have many programs which would like to share uniforms, as we know we can't use uniform buffers in WebGL, it seams to be the only reasonable solution.
-cons:
Of course available size of such 'attributed' uniforms will be much smaller than using regular uniforms, but it still can speed things up a lot if you do it to some part of your uniforms.
I've been working on improving my OpenGL ES 2.0 render performance by introducing batching; specifically one creates a RenderBatch, specifying a texture and a shader (for now) upon creation. This sets the state into a VAO to allow for inexpensive state switching. I started the implementation looking something like this:
batch = RenderBatch.new "SpriteSheet" "FlatShader"
batch.begin GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP
batch.addGeometry Geometry.newFromFile "Billboard"
batch.end
batch.render renderEngine
But then it hit me: my Billboard file has vertices that are meant to be scaled and translated for specific instance usage. So I added a transform argument to the addGeometry call.
batch.addGeometry(Geometry.newFromFile("Billboard"), myObject.transform)
This solves the problem of scaling, translating, and rotating the vertices, but it does so by first looking up the vertex information, transforming it by the transform matrix, and then inserts it into the batch data. While this works it seems inefficient; it is CPU intensive and doesn't take advantage of the GPU's transformation power. However, it works, so not that big of a deal. (Would be nice to have a better way to do this though)
However, I've run into a roadblock: texture coordinates may need to be different for each instance as well, and that means I would have to pass in a texture transformation matrix, and now this is feeling hacky.
Is there an easier way to handle this kind of transformation to existing data using shaders that does not limit the geometry/models given and is easily extensible to use normal maps, UV maps, and other fancy tricks? Thanks!
It seems to me that what you are talking about are shader uniforms. Normally you would set up the vertex data and attributes for each batch in a VBO and a VAO. Then, in your render method, you switch to the correct VAO and set up the shader uniforms. These normally include a model-view-projection matrix to transform vertices into clip space, which necessarily would change nearly every frame, the correct texture to use, etc.
This is efficient because the unchanging vertex data is held in GPU memory, the VAO takes care of cheap state switching, and only the uniforms, which generally change often, are sent to the GPU each render call.
If you are batching multiple objects that require separate model view projection matrices, then you have a few options:
you have to perform a separate draw call for each batch that requires a separate model view projection matrix
use an array of model view projection matrices as a uniform and have an attribute for each object that provides the correct projection matrix index to use
you have to transform the vertices using the CPU and refill the VBO with the updated data
The first method is the preferred solution, it will be efficient and simple. The slow part of rendering lots of draw calls is generally getting the data from the CPU to the GPU, if you already have the vertex data in VBOs then the overhead of a draw call per object is not going to be a big deal. This also solves the problem of how to provide different uniforms per object based on object properties. In each objects render method, the relevant properties are set up as uniforms before the draw call is made. If each object requires different data sent to the GPU, then how else could this work?
This is a trade-off situation. Costs of state changes due to insufficient batching compared to costs of transformation on the CPU. There is no single best solution, but it depends on how much of your scene is static, how much is dynamic and how it is laid out.
A common solution is to put static objects, whose transformation relative to each other never changes into a single VBO, or few VBOs (if they use different textures, vertex formats, etc), completely transformed. This is done once before rendering. Not each frame. Dynamic objects (players, monster, whatever) are then rendered individually, with transformation done in the vertex shader.
You can still optimize for state changes by roughly ordering the drawing of the individual objects by textures and programs.
I'm implementing billboards for vegetation where a billboard is of course a single quad consisting of two triangles. The vertex data is stored in a vertex buffer, but should I bother with indices? I understand that the savings on things like terrain can be huge in terms of vertices sent to the graphics card when you use indices, but using indices on billboards means that I'll have 4 vertices per quad rather than 6, since each quad is completely separate from the others.
And is it possible that the use of indices actually reduces performance because there is an extra level of indirection? Or isn't that of any significance at all?
I'm asking this because using indices would slightly complicate matters and I'm curious to know if I'm not doing extra work that just makes things slower (whether just in theory or actually noticeable in practice).
This is using XNA, but should apply to DirectX.
Using indices not only saves on bandwidth, by sending less data to the card, but also reduces the amount of work the vertex shader has to do. The results of the vertex shader can be cached if there is an index to use as a key.
If you render lots of this billboarded vegetation and don't change your index buffer, I think you should see a small gain.
When it comes to very primitive gemotery then it might won't make any sense to use indices, I won't even bother with performance in that case, even the modest HW will render millions of triangles a seconds.
Now, technically, you don't know how the HW will handle the data internally, it might convert them to indices anyway because that's the most popular form of geometry presentation.