For starter, I know what a lightmap is, what to be gained by using it, and how to implement it. What I don't get is, if you have dynamically moving objects, which won't be able to generate a lightmap, you still need a light source to project their shadows. So, what would be gained by lightmap if we still need a light for the ones that won't get any lightmapping (ie. dynamic objects)?
Thanks in advance.
If you don't use realtime shadows (it's an option, often on mobile), than you can have more or less 2 approach for dynamic objects:
Use lightmap data baked into probes to approximate per-vertex lighting (no need to have realtime light). It's an approximation but can work on some contexts.
Use real-time lights only on dynamic objects, so you'll improve the look of those without sacrifice any performance on static ones, which can use only baked lights
If you need dynamic shadows casted by dynamic objects on static baked ones, than you still can benefits from lightmaps for several reasons:
Even if additional lighting passes are necessary to project shadows on static lightmapped objects, probably not all objects will be affected by shadow, but only the ones relatively close to the dynamic shadow caster object. So you still can save a lot of GPU time.
Lightmaps (especially on forward render path), allow to produce complex light scenarios, that would be otherwise impossible to achieve in realtime. Dynamic objects, doesn't need to be affected by all baked lights, but eventually only from the more important ones. This way you can have a limited amount of drawcalls for a really good looking static environments, and a limited number of "important" lights affecting the dynamic objects
if you have dynamically moving objects, which won't be able to
generate a lightmap, you still need a light source to project their
shadows.
That's true. But:
you save computing shading of static lightmapped objects because light won't affect them
as already said before, projected shadow will be casted on a limited set of objects
Related
I'm taking an introductory graphics course, and while I intuitively understand that converting a click or touch into object coordinates will make the math much cleaner, reduce the chances for human error, and potentially make debugging easier, none of these are actually a very good explanation, conceptually, of why object coordinate spaces are used in selection tests, as opposed to simply using world coordinates for the test - rather, they're just observations of what tends to happen when object coordinates are used. So I ask: why?
A selection test involves comparing the click coordinates, which you get in window coordinates, against lots and lots of object features, which are represented in object coordinates.
You need to transform them into the same coordinate system in order to do the checks, so you can EITHER transform the one simple click point OR you can transform all the various object features.
Transforming one point or line is just a lot easier that transforming a whole bunch of object features of various types.
There are cases where the location of a specific object or point may not be known within a world coordinate system, but is known relative to some other coordinate system.
To summarize an example from my course text, consider the idea of two different towns, one using a grid system for its layout, and the other using what I can only describe as the New England we-made-cow-trails-into-roads method. A government employee is tasked with creating a layout of the area which includes them, and in doing so has to convert the two coordinate systems into a third, which encompasses the other two.
Sometimes, using a world atlas just isn't practical to get across the street, and so something much more local (and relevant) is used instead, as it provides much more detail over a much smaller area.
The text also explains that it may be more than simply impractical to use a given coordinate system - it may yield results that are improbable or just plain wrong. This is evidenced in the evolution of the geocentric and heliocentric models of the universe - the distance of the stars from us was calculated with very different results using the two models.
Thinking of my own example, the best that comes to mind would be something like your own internal organs - from the outside, you don't know for sure exactly the shape, size, and structure of each of them, but your own body does. In order to be able to access that information, you need to look inside the body (ideally in a way that doesn't kill you). It's not something that is plainly observable from outside.
I understand the concept of LOD but I am trying to find out the negative side of it and I see no reference to that from Googling around. The only pro I keep coming across is that it improves performance by omitting details when an object is far and displaying better graphics when the object is near.
Seriously that is the only pro and zero con? Please advice. Tnks.
There are several kinds of LOD based on camera distance. Geometric, animation, texture, and shading variations are the most common (there are also LOD changes that can occur based on image size and, for gaming, hardware capabilities and/or frame rate considerations).
At far distances, models can change tessellation or be replaced by simpler models. Animated details (say, fingers) may simplify or disappear. Textures may move to simpler textures, bump maps vanish, spec/diffuse maps combines, etc. And shaders may also swap-put to reduce the number of texture inputs or calculation (though this is less common and may be less profitable, since when objects are far away they already fill fewer pixels -- but it's important for screen-filling entities like, say, a mountain).
The upsides are that your game/app will have to render less data, and in some cases, the LOD down-rezzed model may actually look better when far away than the more-complex model (usually because the more detailed model will exhibit aliasing when far away, but the simpler one can be tuned for that distance). This frees-up resources for the nearer models that you probably care about, and lets you render overall larger scenes -- you might only be able to render three spaceships at a time at full-res, but hundreds if you use LODs.
The downsides are pretty obvious: you need to support asset swapping, which can mean both the real-time selection of different assets and switching them but also the management (at times of having both models in your memory pipeline (one to discard, one to load)); and those models don't come from the air, someone needs to create them. Finally, and this is really tricky for PC apps, less so for more stable platforms like console gaming: HOW DO YOU MEASURE the rendering benefit? What's the best point to flip from version A of a model to B, and B to C, etc? Often LODs are made based on some pretty hand-wavy specifications from an engineer or even a producer or an art director, based on hunches. Good measurement is important.
LOD has a variety of frameworks. What you are describing fits a distance-based framework.
One possible con is that you will have inaccuracies when you choose an arbitrary point within the object for every distance calculation. This will cause popping effects at times since the viewpoint can change depending on orientation.
I have an application which renders many filled polygons with OpenGL, in 2D. Filling is done by tesselation but performance is not optimal. 1900 polygons made up of 122000 vertex (that is, about 64 vertex per polygon) are displayed in about 3 seconds.
Apparently, the CPU is not the bottleneck, as if I replace calls to gluTessVertex by calls to glColor - just to test where is the bottleneck, performance is doubled.
I have the same problem with loading many small textures.
Now, which are the options to improve the performance? Seems that most time is spend in the geometry subsystem. Rendering is fast enough.
I already have a worker thread which does the load (so tesselation, texture binding) in one context, and another thread which does the draw in another context. The two contexts share objects via wglShareLists and it works like a charm.
Can I have a third thread in a third context which would handle also tesselation for half of the polygons? Anyone tried that? Is it safe? Any example of sharing objects between three contexts?
Forgot to say, I have an ATI Radeon HD 4550 graphics card, suppose it can handle more than 39kB/s of data.
Increase Performance
Sounds like you're using the old fixed-function pipeline.
If you're unsure of what that is, well, the following functions are a part of the fixed-function pipeline.
glBegin()
glEnd()
glVertex*()
glTexCoord*()
glNormal*()
glColor*()
etc.
Those functions are old and render geometry immediately. That means that each time you call the above functions, that geometry gets send to the GPU. By doing that a lot of times, you can easy make the FPS go way under 60 just by rendering simple things.
Now you need to use buffers and to be more precise VAOs with/or VBOs (and IBOs).
VBO or Vertex Buffer Object, is a buffer which can store vertices which you then can render. This is much much faster and better to use than glBegin() and glEnd(). When you create a VBO you supply it with vertices and they only require to be send to the GPU once, that's basically why they are fast, because they already are in the GPU and only require a single draw call instead of multiple.
The reason I said "with/or" is because in the newer versions you need to create a VAO which then would use a VBO, where before you could simply render the VBOs.
Tessellation
There are multiple ways to do tessellation and things which look like/would give the effect of tessellation.
For instance you could also simply render different models according to the required LOD (Level of Detail), thereby when you're up close to an object you then render the model with all it's details which probably would have a high vertices count. Then the further you're away from the model you simply render another version of that model but which have less vertices, which also equals less detail. Though if you can't really do that on something like terrain and definitely shouldn't do it on something like dynamic terrain and/or procedurally generated terrain.
You can also do actual geometry tessellation and you would do that through a Shader. Since tessellation is a really huge topic I will provide you with 2 urls which both explain and have code on them.
Both of these articles uses modern 4.0/4.0+ OpenGL.
http://prideout.net/blog/?p=48
http://antongerdelan.net/opengl/tessellation.html
Texturing
Generating and binding textures are still the same.
Instead of using gluBuild2DMipmaps() you can use glGenerateMipmap(GL_TEXTURE_2D); it was added in OpenGL version 3.0'ish if I remember correctly.
Again you can (and should) change all you glBegin() - glEnd() (and everything in between) calls out with VAOs and VBOs. You can store everything you want inside a buffer vertices, texture coordinates, normals, colors, etc. You can store the things in separate buffers or you can store them inside a single buffer, usually called an Interleaved Buffer or Interleaved VBO.
You wouldn't be needing glEnable(GL_TEXTURE_2D) and glDisable(GL_TEXTURE_2D) anymore, because you do that within a Shader, you bind textures and use them in a Shader, and since you create the Shader Program you can make it act however you want it to.
My understanding is that glBindAttribLocation allows you to custom set a handle to an attribute (before linking a shader program), which you can later use when rendering with glVertexAttribPointer.
But you don't have to use it, and may instead just rely on OpenGL assigning whatever handle it so chooses in its infinite wisdom. However, you would then need to query OpenGL to find out this handle by using glGetAttribLocation at some point before rendering with glVertexAttribPointer.
Now you could use glGetAttribLocation each time you render, which would seem wasteful since you can just use glGetAttribLocation once after building your program, then store the handle.
So essentially, you can store this handle by either using glBindAttribLocation or by using glGetAttribLocation so is there any difference performance-wise and what are the pros and cons of one over the other?
I cannot speak much about the direct performance difference, but it should be irrelevant anyway, since no matter if using glBindAttribLocation or glGetAttribLocation, you're doing it at initialization time anyway (and even then calling glGetAttribLocation shouldn't hurt that much).
But the main difference and advantage of an explicit glBindAttribLocation over letting GL decide is, that it allows you to establish your own attribue semantics and keep them consistent for each and every shader.
Say you have a whole bunch of objects and a whole bunch of shaders. But each shader has some notion of a position attribute (and normal, color, ...), likewise each object has attribute data for positions, normals, ... Now with glBindAttribLocation you can bind your position attribute to location 0 in each and every different shader. So when drawing your objects with different shaders, they can use a single vertex format (i.e. how you call glVertexAttribPointer for the individual attributes, and the individual enable calls).
On the other hand glGetAttribLocation doesn't give you any guarantees about what attributes get which indices (maybe one shader has some additional attribute and the compiler thinks it's a good way to reorder them, who knows). So in this case you have a different vertex format (glVertexAttribPointer call) for each object and each shader.
This is even more important when using Vertex Array Objects (which encapsulate all the attribute state, especially the glVertexAttribPointer and glEnableVertexAttribArray calls). In this case you usually don't need (and don't want) to call glVertexAttribPointer each time you draw an object with another shader.
So the bottom line is, always use glBindAttribLocation, at best (in a large application) it saves you many object and shader management issues and many unneccessary glVertexAttribPointer calls each frame (and that can likely be a performance gain), and at least (in a very small application) it is good practice and lets you stay open and flexible for extensions. As a side note, in desktop GL 3+ (or with the ARB_explicit_attrib_location extension) you can even assign attribute locations directly in the shader without the need for any API call.
I am learning directx. It provides a huge amount of freedom in how to do things, but presumably different stategies perform differently and it provides little guidance as to what well performing usage patterns might be.
When using directx is it typical to have to swap in a bunch of new data multiple times on each render?
The most obvious, and probably really inefficient, way to use it would be like this.
Stragety 1
On every single render
Load everything for model 0 (textures included) and render it (IASetVertexBuffers, VSSetShader, PSSetShader, PSSetShaderResources, PSSetConstantBuffers, VSSetConstantBuffers, Draw)
Load everything for model 1 (textures included) and render it (IASetVertexBuffers, VSSetShader, PSSetShader, PSSetShaderResources, PSSetConstantBuffers, VSSetConstantBuffers, Draw)
etc...
I am guessing you can make this more efficient partly if the biggest things to load are given dedicated slots, e.g. if the texture for model 0 is really complicated, don't reload it on each step, just load it into slot 1 and leave it there. Of course since I'm not sure how many registers there are certain to be of each type in DX11 this is complicated (can anyone point to docuemntation on that?)
Stragety 2
Choose some texture slots for loading and others for perpetual storage of your most complex textures.
Once only
Load most complicated models, shaders and textures into slots dedicated for perpetual storage
On every single render
Load everything not already present for model 0 using slots you set aside for loading and render it (IASetVertexBuffers, VSSetShader, PSSetShader, PSSetShaderResources, PSSetConstantBuffers, VSSetConstantBuffers, Draw)
Load everything not already present for model 1 using slots you set aside for loading and render it (IASetVertexBuffers, VSSetShader, PSSetShader, PSSetShaderResources, PSSetConstantBuffers, VSSetConstantBuffers, Draw)
etc...
Strategy 3
I have no idea, but the above are probably all wrong because I am really new at this.
What are the standard strategies for efficient rendering on directx (specifically DX11) to make it as efficient as possible?
DirectX manages the resources for you and tries to keep them in video memory as long as it can to optimize performance, but can only do so up to the limit of video memory in the card. There is also overhead in every state change even if the resource is still in video memory.
A general strategy for optimizing this is to minimize the number of state changes during the rendering pass. Commonly this means drawing all polygons that use the same texture in a batch, and all objects using the same vertex buffers in a batch. So generally you would try to draw as many primitives as you can before changing the state to draw more primitives
This often will make the rendering code a little more complicated and harder to maintain, so you will want to do some profiling to determine how much optimization you are willing to do.
Generally you will get better performance increases through more general algorithm changes beyond the scope of this question. Some examples would be reducing polygon counts for distant objects and occlusion queries. A popular true phrase is "the fastest polygons are the ones you don't draw". Here are a couple of quick links:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb147263%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3243/optimizing_direct3d_applications_.php
http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter06.html
Other answers are better answers to the question per se, but by far the most relevant thing I found since asking was this discussion on gamedev.net in which some big title games are profiled for state changes and draw calls.
What comes out of it is that big name games don't appear to actually worry too much about this, i.e. it can take significant time to write code that addresses this sort of issue and the time it takes to spend writing code fussing with it probably isn't worth the time lost getting your application finished.