Currently, I am able to hook onto Direct3D application and draw custom stuff onto its surface. However, I would like to suspend this application and then draw something else.
Is this even remotely possible to do so? Like creating another my own Direct3D window on top of that application?
I'm targetting only Windows 7, but the application I want to draw on is using only DirectX 9.
The problem is that I have very little experience with DirectX in general.
Sort of.
You're working with two different elements here, one quite large and but not particularly complex: hooking D3D. The other ("suspending" the app) is simple within that, but you don't quite want what you think you want.
To hook D3D, by the simplest method, you need to intercept the call to CreateDirect3D9 and return your own IDirect3D9, which later creates and returns your own IDirect3DDevice9. This will give you full control over the app's render process.
In order to "suspend" it, you need to wait for the desired trigger, then in your IDirect3DDevice9::Present, call your own event loop. This will, for all intents and purposes, suspend execution of the original app's code, but not the process itself (allowing your code and event loop to process). There will be some limitations of this, and you may not be able to consume window/Windows events (simply), but it will give you full control and effectively pause the original app.
Note, however, that you must intercept and reroute execution in every thread you want to "suspend," it's only specific to a single thread and you don't want physics or AI crunching on while render and UI are paused.
You need to perform your overlay drawing, whatever that may be, during your loop or your IDirect3DDevice9::Present hook, then call the real device's Present method as needed. If you want to run multiple frames of your overlay, then call the real Present repeatedly before returning from your Present. Tweak as necessary. Rendering here is done pretty much normally (check out general D3D tutorials for that), but there is one major catch: the device's state is unknown and may be incompatible, but must be "untouched" on return. This is handled simply by caching an IDirect3DStateBlock9 created from the device immediately after creating it. In your Present hook, create another state block with the state on entrance, restore the clean state block, run your code, then restore the entrance state block. You can work with any states, off a fresh slate, without damaging the device's state (I use this in practice, in works great).
If you want some rather extensive examples of how this works, I'd suggest checking out the Voodoo Shader project, which has full D3D8 and 9 hooks, including everything needed for overlays [/shameless own-project promotion]. Feel free to reuse any of the concepts, or comment with further questions; this certainly isn't all the details that may be useful to you.
This is a very complex thing to accomplish, as it is very much a hack to do so. The only people you see doing such things are steam, teamspeak, xfire, fraps, and a few hard-core devs.
There are kits out on the internet that show you have to inject a DLL into the memory space of the target application to achieve such a feat, and methods such as proxy DLLs.
Proxy DLL:
http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/g-m/directx/directx8/article.php/c11453
Injection:
http://www.progamercity.net/d3d/372-c-directx9-0-hooking-via-detours.html
Good luck, this will take you a while.
Related
I switched to Vulkan from OpenGL to use multi-threading improvements.
In OpenGL, I was able to load dynamically object to the scene (buffer, textures, etc) while rendering by using a waiting system. I was loading all app-side stuffs in a thread, then when it was ready, just before a frame render in the main thread, I was sending everything into the video memory. That was fine.
With Vulkan, I know I can call some functions between threads without provoking the well known segfault from OpenGL. But, this doesn't works with vkQueueSubmit(). I already know, I tried the naive way. To me, it seems logical you can't bother a queue from multiple threads.
I came with some ideas, but I don't know which one is good or bad.
First, I would go the OpenGL way, I will prepare everything I can from the CPU/App side, then just before render a frame, I will submit buffers (with transfer queue) to the video memory. But I feel there is no a real improvement from OpenGL way...
Second, I will try to use the synchronization mechanism to be able to send buffers in a thread and render from an other. But I keep reading there is a lot of way to slow down everything by causing irrelevant locks or by using incorrectly semaphores and fences.
So my question, is basically what path to pick to solve this problem ? How can I load a buffer dynamically from an other thread while the main thread is rendering without making too much pain to performances ? How Vulkan can help ?
If you want to stream resources for immediate use (i.e. the main render cannot proceed without them), then you're pretty much going to either block the main thread waiting, or have it spin doing something visually interesting (e.g. an animated loading screen) waiting for the resources to load.
If you want to stream resources while the app is doing real rendering then the main trick here is to load resources asynchronously in the background and only switch to using those resources in the main thread once they are already loaded. If the main thread ever ends up actually blocked on a semaphore then you've probably already started dropping frames, so your "engine" design needs to ensure that never happens. A lot of game use simple low-detail proxy objects as stand-in versions while the high-detail version is loading in the background.
None of this is particularly related to the graphics API - both GL and Vulkan need the same macro-scale behavior. Vulkan API features don't particularly help because the major bottlenecks which cause problems here are storage/network/CPU which have nothing to do with the graphics part of the problem.
I decided to trust threads !
In the first place it seems to work, I get a lot of :
[MESSAGE:Validation Error: [ UNASSIGNED-Threading-MultipleThreads ] Object 0: handle = 0x56414228bad8, type = VK_OBJECT_TYPE_QUEUE; | MessageID = 0x141cb623 | THREADING ERROR : vkQueueSubmit(): object of type VkQueue is simultaneously used in thread 0x7f6b977fe640 and thread 0x7f6bc2bcb740]
But it works !
So, the basic idea is to have a thread for loading objects while the engine is drawing. This thread takes care of creating the UBO for the location of the object, then when the geometry is loaded from RAM, it creates the VBO and IBO (I left material with image/UBO on hold for now), then creates the graphics pipeline (with layout, descriptor layout, shaders compiled with GLSLang on the fly) (The next idea is to reuse pipeline for similar needs) and finallly sets a flag to say the object is ready to use. In the other hand, I have my main thread rendering and takes new objects when they shows up ready.
I think it works because I have a gentle video card (GTX 1070) with multiple queues setup, I had one for graphics and an other one for transfer setup.
I'm pretty sure, this will crash or goes poorly with a GPU with a single queue, and this should be why the validation layers tolds me these messages.
I want to share my thoughts about how to keep memory barriers in sync in multi-threading rendering. Please let me know if my thoughts about Vulkan memory barrier is wrong or if my current plan makes any sense. I don't have anyone at work to discuss with, so I'll ask here for help.
For resources in Vulkan, when I set memory barriers for them among drawcalls, I need to set both srcAccessMask and dst AccessMask. This is simple for single threaded rendering. But for multi-threading rendering, it gets complicated. dst AccessMask is not a problem, since we always know what the resource is going to be used for. But for srcAccessMask, when one command buffer tries to read the current access mask of some resource, there might be other command buffers changing it to something else. So my current thoughts of solving it is:
Each resource keeps its own state, I'll only update the state right before submitting command buffers to command queue, I will describe it later. Each command buffer maintains tracking record of how the resource state changed inside it. Doing this way, within the same command buffer the access state of each resource is clear, the only problem is the beginning state of the resource for each command buffer.
When submitting multiple command buffers to execute, as the order of command buffers are fixed now, I check the tracking record of each resource among all command buffers, update resource's state based on the end state of the resource in each command buffer, and use that to correct the beginning state of the same resource in each command buffer's tracking record.
Then I need to either insert a new command buffer to have extra memory barrier to transition resource to correct state for the first command buffer, or insert memory barrier into previous command buffer for the rest command buffers.When all these are done, I can finally submit the command buffers together as a batch.
Do these make sense to you? Are there better solutions to solve it? Or do we even need to solve the "synchronization" issue of access state for each resource?
Thank you for your time
What you're talking about only makes sense in a world where none of these rendering operations have even the slightest idea what's going on elsewhere. Where the consumer of an image has no idea how the data in the image got there. Which probably means that it doesn't really know what that image means conceptually.
Vulkan is a low-level API. The idea is that you can connect the high-level concepts of your rendering system directly to Vulkan. So at a high level, you know that resource X has meaning Y and in this frame will have its data generated from operation Z. Not because of something stored in resource X but because it is resource X; that's what resource X is for. So both the operation generating it and the operation consuming it know what's going on and how it got there.
For example, if you're doing deferred rendering and SSAO, then your SSAO renderpass knows that the texture containing the depth buffer had its values generated by rendering. The depth buffer doesn't need something stored in it to say that; that's simply the nature of your rendering. It's hard-coded to work that way.
Most of your resource dependencies are (or ought to be) that way.
If you're doing some render-to-texture operation via the framebuffer, then the consumer probably doesn't even need to know about the dependency. You can just set an appropriate external dependency for the renderpass and the subpass that generates it. And you probably know why you did the render-to-texture op, and you probably know where it's going. If you're doing RTT for reflection, you know that the destination will be some kind of shader stage texture fetch. And if you don't know how it's going to be used, then you can just be safe and set all of the destination stage bits.
What you're talking about makes some degree of sense if you're dealing with streamed objects, where objects are popping into and outof memory with some regularity. But even then, that's not really a property of each individual resource.
When you load a streamed chunk, you upload its data by generating command buffer(s) and submitting them. And here's where we have an implementation-specific divergence. Your best bet for performance is to execute these CBs on a queue dedicated for transfer operations. But since Vulkan doesn't guarantee all implementations have those, you need to be able to deliver those transfer CBs to the main rendering queue.
So you need a way to communicate to rendering threads when they can expect to start being able to use the resources. But even that doesn't need to be on a per-resource basis; they can be told "stuff from block X is available", and then they can start using it.
Furthermore, that implementation divergence becomes important. See, if it's done on another queue, a barrier isn't the right synchronization primitive. Your rendering CBs now have to have their submitted batches wait on a semaphore. And that semaphore should handle all of the synchronization needs of the memory (ie: the destination bits being everything). So in the implementation where the transfer CBs are executed on the same queue as your rendering CBs, you may as well save yourself some trouble and issue a single barrier at the end of the transfer CB that makes all of the given resources available to all stages.
So as previously stated, this kind of automated system is only useful if you have no real control over the structure of rendering. This would principally be true if you're writing some kind of middleware, where the higher-level code defines the structure of rendering. However, if that's the case, Vulkan probably isn't the right tool for that job.
I'm designing a large-scale project, and I think I see a way I could drastically improve performance by taking advantage of multiple cores. However, I have zero experience with multiprocessing, and I'm a little concerned that my ideas might not be good ones.
Idea
The program is a video game that procedurally generates massive amounts of content. Since there's far too much to generate all at once, the program instead tries to generate what it needs as or slightly before it needs it, and expends a large amount of effort trying to predict what it will need in the near future and how near that future is. The entire program, therefore, is built around a task scheduler, which gets passed function objects with bits of metadata attached to help determine what order they should be processed in and calls them in that order.
Motivation
It seems to be like it ought to be easy to make these functions execute concurrently in their own processes. But looking at the documentation for the multiprocessing modules makes me reconsider- there doesn't seem to be any simple way to share large data structures between threads. I can't help but imagine this is intentional.
Questions
So I suppose the fundamental questions I need to know the answers to are thus:
Is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to access the same list/dict/etc... for both reading and writing at the same time? Can I just launch multiple instances of my star generator, give it access to the dict that holds all the stars, and have new objects appear to just pop into existence in the dict from the perspective of other threads (that is, I wouldn't have to explicitly grab the star from the process that made it; I'd just pull it out of the dict as if the main thread had put it there itself).
If not, is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to read the same data structure at the same time, but feed their resultant data back to a main thread to be rolled into that same data structure safely?
Would this design work even if I ensured that no two concurrent functions tried to access the same data structure at the same time, either for reading or for writing?
Can data structures be inherently shared between processes at all, or do I always explicitly have to send data from one process to another as I would with processes communicating over a TCP stream? I know there are objects that abstract away that sort of thing, but I'm asking if it can be done away with entirely; have the object each thread is looking at actually be the same block of memory.
How flexible are the objects that the modules provide to abstract away the communication between processes? Can I use them as a drop-in replacement for data structures used in existing code and not notice any differences? If I do such a thing, would it cause an unmanageable amount of overhead?
Sorry for my naivete, but I don't have a formal computer science education (at least, not yet) and I've never worked with concurrent systems before. Is the idea I'm trying to implement here even remotely practical, or would any solution that allows me to transparently execute arbitrary functions concurrently cause so much overhead that I'd be better off doing everything in one thread?
Example
For maximum clarity, here's an example of how I imagine the system would work:
The UI module has been instructed by the player to move the view over to a certain area of space. It informs the content management module of this, and asks it to make sure that all of the stars the player can currently click on are fully generated and ready to be clicked on.
The content management module checks and sees that a couple of the stars the UI is saying the player could potentially try to interact with have not, in fact, had the details that would show upon click generated yet. It produces a number of Task objects containing the methods of those stars that, when called, will generate the necessary data. It also adds some metadata to these task objects, assuming (possibly based on further information collected from the UI module) that it will be 0.1 seconds before the player tries to click anything, and that stars whose icons are closest to the cursor have the greatest chance of being clicked on and should therefore be requested for a time slightly sooner than the stars further from the cursor. It then adds these objects to the scheduler queue.
The scheduler quickly sorts its queue by how soon each task needs to be done, then pops the first task object off the queue, makes a new process from the function it contains, and then thinks no more about that process, instead just popping another task off the queue and stuffing it into a process too, then the next one, then the next one...
Meanwhile, the new process executes, stores the data it generates on the star object it is a method of, and terminates when it gets to the return statement.
The UI then registers that the player has indeed clicked on a star now, and looks up the data it needs to display on the star object whose representative sprite has been clicked. If the data is there, it displays it; if it isn't, the UI displays a message asking the player to wait and continues repeatedly trying to access the necessary attributes of the star object until it succeeds.
Even though your problem seems very complicated, there is a very easy solution. You can hide away all the complicated stuff of sharing you objects across processes using a proxy.
The basic idea is that you create some manager that manages all your objects that should be shared across processes. This manager then creates its own process where it waits that some other process instructs it to change the object. But enough said. It looks like this:
import multiprocessing as m
manager = m.Manager()
starsdict = manager.dict()
process = Process(target=yourfunction, args=(starsdict,))
process.run()
The object stored in starsdict is not the real dict. instead it sends all changes and requests, you do with it, to its manager. This is called a "proxy", it has almost exactly the same API as the object it mimics. These proxies are pickleable, so you can pass as arguments to functions in new processes (like shown above) or send them through queues.
You can read more about this in the documentation.
I don't know how proxies react if two processes are accessing them simultaneously. Since they're made for parallelism I guess they should be safe, even though I heard they're not. It would be best if you test this yourself or look for it in the documentation.
I am using LibGDX to make a game. I want to simultaneously load/unload assets on the fly as needed. However, waiting for assets to load in the main thread causes lag. In order to remedy this, I've created a background thread that monitors which assets need to be loaded (textures, sounds, etc.) and loads/unloads them appropriately.
Unfortunately, I get the following error when calling AssetManager.update() from that thread.
com.badlogic.gdx.utils.GdxRuntimeException: java.lang.RuntimeException: No OpenGL context found in the current thread.
I've tried runing the background thread in the main thread in the beginning and just dealing with the first few screens, and everything works fine. I can also change the algorithm to just load everything into memory from the start in the same thread, and that works as well. However, neither works in the background thread.
When I run this on Android with OpenGL ES 2.0 (which is flexible in odd ways) instead of on Windows, everything runs fine, and I can even get the pixel dimensions of the images - but the textures render black.
My searches have told me that this is an issue of the OpenGL context being bound to a single thread, but not much else. This explains why everything works when I shove it in the main thread, and not when I put it in a different one. How do I fix this context problem?
First things first, you should not access the OpenGL context outside of the rendering thread.
I assume you have looked at these already, but just to make sure read up on the AssetManager wiki article, which talks a bit about how to use the AssetManager for asynchronous managing of assets. In addition to the wiki article, check out the AssetManagerTest to better understand how to use it. The asset manager test is probably your best bet into loading at how to dynamically load assets.
If you are loading a ton of stuff, you may want to look into creating a loading bar to load anything large upfront. It might work to check assets and such from another thread (and set a flag to call update), but at the end of the day you will need to call update() on the rendering thread.
Keeping in mind you have to call update() it from a different thread, I don't see why you would want another thread to check conditions and set a flag. There is probably more overhead using another thread and synchronizing the update() call than to just do it all on the rendering thread. Also, the update() method only pauses for a couple milliseconds at a time as it incrementally loads files. Typically, you would simply call load() for your asset, then check isLoaded() on your asset. If it isn't loaded you would then call update() once per frame until isLoaded() returns true. Once it returns true, you can then call get() and get whatever asset you were loading. This can all be done via the main rendering thread without having the app lag while its loading.
If you really want your other thread to call update(), you need to create a Runnable object and call postRunnable() such as how they have it described in the wiki article on multi-threading with libGDX. However, this defeats the whole point of using other threads because anything you use with postRunnable runs synchronously on the rendering thread.
I've been learning some lua for game development. I heard about coroutines in other languages but really came up on them in lua. I just don't really understand how useful they are, I heard a lot of talk how it can be a way to do multi-threaded things but aren't they run in order? So what benefit would there be from normal functions that also run in order? I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that they can pause and let another run for a second. Seems like the use case scenarios wouldn't be that huge to me.
Anyone care to shed some light as to why someone would benefit from them?
Especially insight from a game programming perspective would be nice^^
OK, think in terms of game development.
Let's say you're doing a cutscene or perhaps a tutorial. Either way, what you have are an ordered sequence of commands sent to some number of entities. An entity moves to a location, talks to a guy, then walks elsewhere. And so forth. Some commands cannot start until others have finished.
Now look back at how your game works. Every frame, it must process AI, collision tests, animation, rendering, and sound, among possibly other things. You can only think every frame. So how do you put this kind of code in, where you have to wait for some action to complete before doing the next one?
If you built a system in C++, what you would have is something that ran before the AI. It would have a sequence of commands to process. Some of those commands would be instantaneous, like "tell entity X to go here" or "spawn entity Y here." Others would have to wait, such as "tell entity Z to go here and don't process anymore commands until it has gone here." The command processor would have to be called every frame, and it would have to understand complex conditions like "entity is at location" and so forth.
In Lua, it would look like this:
local entityX = game:GetEntity("entityX");
entityX:GoToLocation(locX);
local entityY = game:SpawnEntity("entityY", locY);
local entityZ = game:GetEntity("entityZ");
entityZ:GoToLocation(locZ);
do
coroutine.yield();
until (entityZ:isAtLocation(locZ));
return;
On the C++ size, you would resume this script once per frame until it is done. Once it returns, you know that the cutscene is over, so you can return control to the user.
Look at how simple that Lua logic is. It does exactly what it says it does. It's clear, obvious, and therefore very difficult to get wrong.
The power of coroutines is in being able to partially accomplish some task, wait for a condition to become true, then move on to the next task.
Coroutines in a game:
Easy to use, Easy to screw up when used in many places.
Just be careful and not use it in many places.
Don't make your Entire AI code dependent on Coroutines.
Coroutines are good for making a quick fix when a state is introduced which did not exist before.
This is exactly what java does. Sleep() and Wait()
Both functions are the best ways to make it impossible to debug your game.
If I were you I would completely avoid any code which has to use a Wait() function like a Coroutine does.
OpenGL API is something you should take note of. It never uses a wait() function but instead uses a clean state machine which knows exactly what state what object is at.
If you use coroutines you end with up so many stateless pieces of code that it most surely will be overwhelming to debug.
Coroutines are good when you are making an application like Text Editor ..bank application .. server ..database etc (not a game).
Bad when you are making a game where anything can happen at any point of time, you need to have states.
So, in my view coroutines are a bad way of programming and a excuse to write small stateless code.
But that's just me.
It's more like a religion. Some people believe in coroutines, some don't. The usecase, the implementation and the environment all together will result into a benefit or not.
Don't trust benchmarks which try to proof that coroutines on a multicore cpu are faster than a loop in a single thread: it would be a shame if it were slower!
If this runs later on some hardware where all cores are always under load, it will turn out to be slower - ups...
So there is no benefit per se.
Sometimes it's convenient to use. But if you end up with tons of coroutines yielding and states that went out of scope you'll curse coroutines. But at least it isn't the coroutines framework, it's still you.
We use them on a project I am working on. The main benefit for us is that sometimes with asynchronous code, there are points where it is important that certain parts are run in order because of some dependencies. If you use coroutines, you can force one process to wait for another process to complete. They aren't the only way to do this, but they can be a lot simpler than some other methods.
I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that
they can pause and let another run for a second.
That's a pretty important property. I worked on a game engine which used them for timing. For example, we had an engine that ran at 10 ticks a second, and you could WaitTicks(x) to wait x number of ticks, and in the user layer, you could run WaitFrames(x) to wait x frames.
Even professional native concurrency libraries use the same kind of yielding behaviour.
Lots of good examples for game developers. I'll give another in the application extension space. Consider the scenario where the application has an engine that can run a users routines in Lua while doing the core functionality in C. If the user needs to wait for the engine to get to a specific state (e.g. waiting for data to be received), you either have to:
multi-thread the C program to run Lua in a separate thread and add in locking and synchronization methods,
abend the Lua routine and retry from the beginning with a state passed to the function to skip anything, least you rerun some code that should only be run once, or
yield the Lua routine and resume it once the state has been reached in C
The third option is the easiest for me to implement, avoiding the need to handle multi-threading on multiple platforms. It also allows the user's code to run unmodified, appearing as if the function they called took a long time.