I want to add instancing to my WebGL application, which works fine using gl_InstanceID for devices running WebGL2. However, I want to also support older devices running WebGL1 - apparently this is available as an extension for OpenGLES2.0 (see here):
#extension GL_EXT_draw_instanced : enable
#define gl_InstanceID gl_InstanceIDEXT
However, it doesn't look like WebGL1 supports this extension (at least not on the devices I've tested with). Is the list at MDN the canonical list? Is there another way to support instancing for WebGL? I found this thread that has someone offering an implementation, but unfortunately the links are dead.
The official canonical list for WebGL extensions can be found here:
https://registry.khronos.org/webgl/extensions/
WebGL1 does support instancing through the ANGLE_instanced_arrays extension (MDN page). It has the same functionality and API(postfixed with ANGLE) as the WebGL2 default functionality, however GLSL ES 1.0 does not support gl_InstanceID so you'll have to implement a work around if you require it.
Now that a Vulkan to Metal wrapper is officially supported by Khronos (MoltenVK), and that OpenGL to Vulkan wrappers began to appear (glo), would it be technically possible to use OpenGL ES 3.1 or even 3.2 (so even with support to OpenGL compute shaders) on modern iOS versions/HW by chaining these two technologies? Has anybody tried this combination?
I'm not much interested in the performance drop (that would obviously be there due to the two additional layers of abstraction), but only on the enabling factor and cross-platform aspect of the solution.
In theory, yes :).
MoltenVK doesn't support every bit of Vulkan (see the Vulkan Portable Subset section), and some of those features might be required by OpenGL ES 3.1. Triangle fans are an obvious one, full texture swizzle is another. MoltenVK has focused on things that could translate directly; if the ES-on-Vulkan translator was willing to accept extra overhead, it could fake some or all of these features.
The core ANGLE team is working on both OpenGL ES 3.1 support and a Vulkan backend, according to their README and recent commits. They have a history of emulating features (like triangle fans) needed by ES that weren't available in D3D.
I'm creating a simple Breakout style game and would like a simple way to display the score.
I've been doing some research and found several ways to do text in OpenGL ES, but most methods look fairly complicated.
This looks like it would do the trick, but I couldn't get it to work.
I've looked into FTGL and FreeType, but they look complicated.
I've also read one can display a UILabel over the EAGLContext, but not sure how that would be in the performance department.
I could probably get any of these options to work, I'm just wondering what the best solution is for this situation.
For simple use cases like you're describing, on even vaguely modern hardware (i.e. iPhone 3GS and later, I think), the compositing penalty for layering UIKit/CoreAnimation content on top of OpenGL ES content is negligible. (You can see this if you run your app in Instruments with the "Color OpenGL ES fast path blue" option turned on.)
They say premature optimization is the root of all evil — it's pretty easy to try UILabel, see if it makes a significant difference to your app's performance, and look into third-party libraries and more complicated solutions only if it does.
(Also, it sounds like you might be trying to manage your own CAEAGLLayer. For common use cases, it's a lot easier to use GLKView, plus GLKViewController for animation.)
I'd recommend checking out the Print3D functionality of the PowerVR SDK's PVRTools framework. Print3D is free to use, cross-platform (iOS, Android, Linux, Windows, OS X etc.) and it efficiently renders text within OpenGL ES 1.x, 2.0 & 3.0 applications. The SDK includes an example application with source that demonstrates how to use the Print3D framework (IntroducingPrint3D).
The PowerVR Graphics SDK can be downloaded for free from Imagination's website: http://www.imgtec.com/powervr/insider/sdkdownloads/index.asp
An overview of the source included in the SDK can be found here: http://www.imgtec.com/powervr/insider/sdkdownloads/learn_more.asp
I have a number of GLSL fragment shaders for which I can pretty much guarantee that they conform to #version 120 They use standard, non-ES conformant values and they do not have any ES-specific pragmas.
I really want to make a web previewer for them using WebGL. The previewer won't be used on mobile. Is this feasible? Is the feature set exposed to GLSL shaders in WebGL restricted compared to that GLSL version? Are there precision differences?
I've already tried playing with THREE.js but that doesn't really rub it since it mucks up my shader code before loading it onto the GPU (which I cannot do).
In short: is the GLSL spec sufficient for me to run those shaders?.. because if it isn't what I am after is not doable and I should just drop it.
No, WebGL shaders must be version #100. Anything else is disallowed.
If you're curious why it's because, as much as possible, WebGL needs to run everywhere. If you could choose any version your web page would only run on systems with GPUs/Drivers that handled that version.
The next version of WebGL will raise the version number. It will allow GLSL ES 3.0 (note the ES). It's currently available behind a flag in Chrome and Firefox as of May 2016
I want to do projects to make my resume more appealing to game companies. So I am going to start buying books. But I don't know rather to read DirectX 9 or 10 api books to start off with. DirectX10 is great, but it seems the industry is moving slow to 10. so should I use 9 or go with 10 ??
I would suggest learning the basics using directx9 and then rapidly moving on to dx11. DirectX11 is harder to get started in than DirectX9 because it's slightly more complex but also a lot of the utility functions in D3DX are no longer there, or have been moved to source code like the effects framework. This is no bad thing, but it does make it signifiacantly more complex to learn as you have to learn a lot more things at once.
Spend 2 or 3 weeks learning DX9 then move to DX11 for "real" work :P
Learn basic DX9 using the fixed pipeline and d3dx for loading models etc. It's a lot simpler than DX11 and much better documented, and you'll get a triangle and then a model on screen very much faster. Play with that until you completely understand the basic concepts and tranformations.
But then rewrite it all using shaders only. You'll need to use them in DX10/11 anyway but it's a lot easier to learn when you already have a working framework of code, and it's a lot simpler to get that working in DX9.
Once you have that working, learn DX11. You'll have to switch math libraries. You'll have to invent your own model formats and loaders. You'll have to either invent your own effects framework or use the example one, but they are all much easier now you already know the basics of 3d and programming shaders.
TBH further to OneOfOne's comment if you know how to do 3D development in GL, D3D9, D3D10 or D3D11 then you can transfer those skills to any of the others with a little bit of work.
Personally I'd aim for D3D11 as that way you are learning the cutting edge. You'll find you'll be able to do GL, D3D9 or D3D10 with a little work. Do enough work on the theory and you'll discover that its not even that hard to transfer the skills to a fully software engine.
If your intention is really to learn a skill that you would use in the game industry, stick with DirectX 9. Since DirectX 10 and 11 both require Vista or Window 7, game developers are still mostly ignoring them and targeting DirectX 9 in order to have support for Windows XP.
That being said, it doesn't really matter which you start with. The differences are not that large. If you understand the concepts behind 3D APIs and how the GPU pipeline works, you can pick up any of the three or even OpenGL with minimal effort.
Fact is, you need to learn both.
As long as 50% of gamers are still on WinXP, you're going to need to be able to program in Direct3D9.
D3D9 isn't any easier to get started with than D3D10/11. Its the same principles, with vertices to be placed, normals to be calculated, and meshes to be rendered. Whether you're creating a ID3D11BlendState structure or calling IDirect3DDevice9::SetRenderState(), its the same concept, just different ways of doing it.
After working with d3d11 a couple of days, I've come to think of it as better than DX9 in a lot of ways. For one, you're able to use the full caps of the GPU including geometry shaders. 2nd, it forces you to fully understand the graphics pipeline to even draw anything (note how functions are named after the stage of the pipeline they affect: here: (IA* fcns: input-assembler stage, OM* fcns: output-merger stage etc) ). This may result in a slightly larger INITIAL startup curve, but once you get it, its not any harder than D3D9 and is better, since the very naming of the functions helps concepts stick.
So get going on both, and learning them in tandem may help reduce the amount of effort you spend learning deprecated API's/methods of doing things from DX9 (ie you really want to spend more time using shaders, and don't use the fixed function pipeline section of DX9 too much).
You can check Luna's books for DX9 /DX11(I suggest you start with 11). You can check out http://www.rastertek.com/tutdx11.html but he doesn't explain everything so you can go in Luna s book to see what is with those functions or properties
With some little exceptions, DX10 is just a legacy free DX9. For example DX9 had build in options for rendering Flatshaded, Textured or using a Shader. In DX10 these options are gone, you always have to use a real shader. If you want to do flatshading, write a HLSL shader that does flat shading.
So I would suggest you learn DX10 (or DX11). You will be able to adopt fast to DX9 but with a more modern coding style by not using legacy functions. They can be quiet confusing, so DX10 will focus you on relevant things.
If you are a real beginner, and setting up a vertex-buffer to create a single triangle is confusing you (as real 3D-Programmer you are no more interesten in single triangles) I even would suggest to start with OpenGL. You will have faster success, but in reality this can be a little bit distracting as DX9-Legacy if you want to focus on modern 3D-Coding.
Yes do not waste your time with DX10 it was never really adopted as the industry standard for any period of time, there wasn't any big enough changes to warrant people upgrading from DX9 but for DX11 there was.
I suggest directx 11, there's no reason in my opinion to waste time on deprecated functions or techniques.
Learning shaders from the start will make things way more clear
Try doing the samples from the sample folder of both 9 and 10, and if your computer can support it, 11. This is what I am doing.