I am using openGLES on IOS to do some general data processing. Currently I am trying to make a large lookup table (~1M elements) of float values accessed by integer indexes, and I would like it to be 1D (though 2D works). I have learnt that using texture/sampler is probably the way to do that, but my remaining questions are:
Sampler or Texture, which is more efficient? What would be the parameter settings to achieve the optimal results (like those configured in glTexParameteri())?
I know I can use 1-sample-high 2D sampler/texture as 1D, but being out of curiosity, I wonder if the 1D sampler/texture is removed on IOS es3? I cannot find the method glTexImage2D() nor parameters GL_TEXTURE_1D with ES3/gl.h imported.
OpenGL ES does not have 1D textures. Never did in any previous version, and still doesn't up to the most recent version (3.2). And I very much doubt it ever will.
At least in my opinion, that's no big loss. You can do anything you could have done with a 1D texture using a 2D texture of height 1. The only minor inconvenience is that you have to pass in some more sampling attributes, and a second texture coordinate when you sample the texture in your GLSL code.
For the sizes you're looking at, you'll have the same problem with a 2D texture of height 1 that you would have faced with 1D textures as well: You're limited by the maximum texture size. This is given by the value you can query with glGetIntegerv(GL_MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE, ...). Typical values for relatively recent mobile platforms are 2K to 8K. Based on the published docs, it looks like the limit is 4096 on recent Apple platforms (A7 to A9).
There is nothing I can think of that would give you a much larger range in a single dimension. There is a EXT_texture_buffer extension that targets your use case, but I don't see it in the list of supported extensions for iOS.
So the best you can probably do is store the data in a 2D texture, and use div/mod arithmetic to split your large 1D index into 2 texture coordinates.
Related
I'm trying to create an implementation of seam carving which will run on the GPU using Metal. The dynamic programming part of the algorithm requires the image to be processed row-by-row (or column-by-column), so it's not perfectly suited to GPU I know, but I figure with images potentially thousands of pixels wide/tall, it will still benefit from parallelisation.
My two ideas were either
write a shader that uses 2D textures, but ensure that Metal computes over the image in the correct order, finishing one row before starting the next
write a shader using 1D textures, then manually pass in each row of the image to compute; ideally creating a view into the 2D textures rather than having to copy the data into separate 1D textures
I am still new to Metal and Swift, so my naïve attempts at both of these did not work. For option 1, I tried to dispatch threads using a threadgroup of Nx1x1, but the resulting texture just comes back all zeros – besides I am not convinced this is even right in theory, even if I tell it to use a threadgroup of height one, I'm not sure I can guarantee it will start on the first row. For option 2, I simply couldn't find a nice way to create a 1D view into a 2D texture by row/column – the documentation seems to suggest that Metal does not like giving you access to the underlying data, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way to do this.
Thanks for any ideas!
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:
I'm trying to implement fluid dynamics using compute shaders. In the article there are a series of passes done on a texture since this was written before compute shaders.
Would it be faster to do each pass on a texture or buffer? The final pass would have to be applied to a texture anyways.
I would recommend using whichever dimensionality of resource fits the simulation. If it's a 1D simulation, use a RWBuffer, if it's a 2D simulation use a RWTexture2D and if it's a 3D simulation use a RWTexture3D.
There appear to be stages in the algorithm that you linked that make use of bilinear filtering. If you restrict yourself to using a Buffer you'll have to issue 4 or 8 memory fetches (depending on 2D or 3D) and then more instructions to calculate the weighted average. Take advantage of the hardware's ability to do this for you where possible.
Another thing to be aware of is that data in textures is not laid out row by row (linearly) as you might expect, instead it's laid in such a way that neighbouring texels are as close to one another in memory as possible; this can be called Tiling or Swizzling depending on whose documentation you read. For that reason, unless your simulation is one-dimensional, you may well get far better cache coherency on reads/writes from a resource whose layout most closely matches the dimensions of the simulation.
I'm trying to find the most efficient way of handling multi-texturing in OpenGL ES2 on iOS. By 'efficient' I mean the fastest rendering even on older iOS devices (iPhone 4 and up) - but also balancing convenience.
I've considered (and tried) several different methods. But have run into a couple of problems and questions.
Method 1 - My base and normal values are rgb with NO ALPHA. For these objects I don't need transparency. My emission and specular information are each only one channel. To reduce texture2D() calls I figured I could store the emission as the alpha channel of the base, and the specular as the alpha of the normal. With each being in their own file it would look like this:
My problem so far has been finding a file format that will support a full non-premultiplied alpha channel. PNG just hasn't worked for me. Every way that I've tried to save this as a PNG premultiplies the .alpha with the .rgb on file save (via photoshop) basically destroying the .rgb. Any pixel with a 0.0 alpha has a black rgb when I reload the file. I posted that question here with no activity.
I know this method would yield faster renders if I could work out a way to save and load this independent 4th channel. But so far I haven't been able to and had to move on.
Method 2 - When that didn't work I moved on to a single 4-way texture where each quadrant has a different map. This doesn't reduce texture2D() calls but it reduces the number of textures that are being accessed within the shader.
The 4-way texture does require that I modify the texture coordinates within the shader. For model flexibility I leave the texcoords as is in the model's structure and modify them in the shader like so:
v_fragmentTexCoord0 = a_vertexTexCoord0 * 0.5;
v_fragmentTexCoord1 = v_fragmentTexCoord0 + vec2(0.0, 0.5); // illumination frag is up half
v_fragmentTexCoord2 = v_fragmentTexCoord0 + vec2(0.5, 0.5); // shininess frag is up and over
v_fragmentTexCoord3 = v_fragmentTexCoord0 + vec2(0.5, 0.0); // normal frag is over half
To avoid dynamic texture lookups (Thanks Brad Larson) I moved these offsets to the vertex shader and keep them out of the fragment shader.
But my question here is: Does reducing the number of texture samplers used in a shader matter? Or would I be better off using 4 different smaller textures here?
The one problem I did have with this was bleed over between the different maps. A texcoord of 1.0 was was averaging in some of the blue normal pixels due to linear texture mapping. This added a blue edge on the object near the seam. To avoid it I had to change my UV mapping to not get too close to the edge. And that's a pain to do with very many objects.
Method 3 would be to combine methods 1 and 2. and have the base.rgb + emission.a on one side and normal.rgb + specular.a on the other. But again I still have this problem getting an independent alpha to save in a file.
Maybe I could save them as two files but combine them during loading before sending it over to openGL. I'll have to try that.
Method 4 Finally, In a 3d world if I have 20 different panel textures for walls, should these be individual files or all packed in a single texture atlas? I recently noticed that at some point minecraft moved from an atlas to individual textures - albeit they are 16x16 each.
With a single model and by modifying the texture coordinates (which I'm already doing in method 2 and 3 above), you can easily send an offset to the shader to select a particular map in an atlas:
v_fragmentTexCoord0 = u_texOffset + a_vertexTexCoord0 * u_texScale;
This offers a lot of flexibility and reduces the number of texture bindings. It's basically how I'm doing it in my game now. But IS IT faster to access a small portion of a larger texture and have the above math in the vertex shader? Or is it faster to repeatedly bind smaller textures over and over? Especially if you're not sorting objects by texture.
I know this is a lot. But the main question here is what's the most efficient method considering speed + convenience? Will method 4 be faster for multiple textures or would multiple rebinds be faster? Or is there some other way that I'm overlooking. I see all these 3d games with a lot of graphics and area coverage. How do they keep frame rates up, especially on older devices like the iphone4?
**** UPDATE ****
Since I've suddenly had 2 answers in the last few days I'll say this. Basically I did find the answer. Or AN answer. The question is which method is more efficient? Meaning which method will result in the best frame rates. I've tried the various methods above and on the iPhone 5 they're all just about as fast. The iPhone5/5S has an extremely fast gpu. Where it matters is on older devices like the iPhone4/4S, or on larger devices like a retina iPad. My tests were not scientific and I don't have ms speeds to report. But 4 texture2D() calls to 4 RGBA textures was actually just as fast or maybe even faster than 4 texture2d() calls to a single texture with offsets. And of course I do those offset calculations in the vertex shader and not the fragment shader (never in the fragment shader).
So maybe someday I'll do the tests and make a grid with some numbers to report. But I don't have time to do that right now and write a proper answer myself. And I can't really checkmark any other answer that isn't answering the question cause that's not how SO works.
But thanks to the people who have answered. And check out this other question of mine that also answered some of this one: Load an RGBA image from two jpegs on iOS - OpenGL ES 2.0
Have a post process step in your content pipeline where you merge your rgb with alpha texture and store it in a. Ktx file when you package the game or as a post build event when you compile.
It's fairly trivial format and would be simple to write such command-line tool that loads 2 png's and merges these into one Ktx, rgb + alpha.
Some benefits by doing that is
- less cpu overhead when loading the file at game start up, so the games starts quicker.
- Some GPUso does not natively support rgb 24bit format, which would force the driver to internally convert it to rgba 32bit. This adds more time to the loading stage and temporary memory usage.
Now when you got the data in a texture object, you do want to minimize texture sampling as it means alot of gpu operations and memory accesses depending on filtering mode.
I would recommend to have 2 textures with 2 layers each since there's issues if you do add all of them to the same one is potential artifacts when you sample with bilinear or mipmapped as it may include neighbour pixels close to edge where one texture layer ends and the second begins, or if you decided to have mipmaps generated.
As an extra improvement I would recommend not having raw rgba 32bit data in the Ktx, but actually compressing it into a dxt or pvrtc format. This would use much less memory which means faster loading times and less memory transfers for the gpu, as memory bandwidth is limited.
Of course, adding the compressor to the post process tool is slightly more complex.
Do note that compressed textures do loose a bit of the quality depending on algorithm and implementation.
Silly question but are you sure you are sampler limited? It just seems to me that, with your "two 2-way textures" you are potentially pulling in a lot of texture data, and you might instead be bandwidth limited.
What if you were to use 3 textures [ BaseRGB, NormalRBG, and combined Emission+Specular] and use PVRTC compression? Depending on the detail, you might even be able to use 2bpp (rather than 4bpp) for the BaseRGB and/or Emission+Specular.
For the Normals I'd probably stick to 4bpp. Further, if you can afford the shader instructions, only store the R&G channels (putting 0 in the blue channel) and re-derive the blue channel with a bit of maths. This should give better quality.
I've got a question regarding ComputeShader compared to PixelShader.
I want to do some processing on a buffer, and this is possible both with a pixel shader and a compute shader, and now I wonder if there is any advantage in either over the other one, specifically when it comes to speed. I've had issues with either getting to use just 8 bit values, but I should be able to work-around that.
Every data point in the output will be calculated from using in total 8 data points surrounding it (MxN matrix), so I'd think this would be perfect for a pixel shader, since the different outputs don't influence each other at all.
But I was unable to find any benchmarkings to compare the shaders, and now I wonder which one I should aim for. Only target is the speed.
From what i understand, shaders are shaders in the sense that they are just programs run by alot of threads on data. Therefore, in general there should not be any diffrence in terms of computing power/speed doing calculations in the pixel shader as opposed to the compute shader. However..
To do calculations on the pixelshader you have to massage your data so that it looks like image data, this means you have to draw a quad first of all, but also that your output must have the 'shape' of a pixel (float4 basically). This data must then be interpreted by you app into something useful
if you're using the computeshader you can completly control the number of threads to use where as for pixel shaders they have to be valid resolutions. Also you can input and output data in any format you like and take advantage of accelerated conversion using UAVs (i think)
i'd recommend using computeshaders since they are ment for doing general purpose computation and are alot easier to work with. Your over all application will probably be faster too, even if the actual shader computation time is about the same, just because you can avoid some of the hoops you have to jump through just through to get pixel shaders to do what you want.