An old Direct3D book says
"...you can achieve an acceptable frame
rate with hardware acceleration while
displaying between 2000 and 4000
polygons per frame..."
What is one polygon in Direct3D? Do they mean one primitive (indexed or otherwise) or one triangle?
That book means triangles. Otherwise, what if I wanted 1000-sided polygons? Could I still achieve 2000-4000 such shapes per frame?
In practice, the only thing you'll want it to be is a triangle because if a polygon is not a triangle it's generally tessellated to be one anyway. (Eg, a quad consists of two triangles, et cetera). A basic triangulation (tessellation) algorithm for that is really simple; you just loop though the vertices and turn every three vertices into a triangle.
Here, a "polygon" refers to a triangle. All . However, as you point out, there are many more variables than just the number of triangles which determine performance.
Key issues that matter are:
The format of storage (indexed or not; list, fan, or strip)
The location of storage (host-memory vertex arrays, host-memory vertex buffers, or GPU-memory vertex buffers)
The mode of rendering (is the draw primitive command issued fully from the host, or via instancing)
Triangle size
Together, those variables can create much greater than a 2x variation in performance.
Similarly, the hardware on which the application is running may vary 10x or more in performance in the real world: a GPU (or integrated graphics processor) that was low-end in 2005 will perform 10-100x slower in any meaningful metric than a current top-of-the-line GPU.
All told, any recommendation that you use 2-4000 triangles is so ridiculously outdated that it should be entirely ignored today. Even low-end hardware today can easily push 100,000 triangles in a frame under reasonable conditions. Further, most visually interesting applications today are dominated by pixel shading performance, not triangle count.
General rules of thumb for achieving good triangle throughput today:
Use [indexed] triangle (or quad) lists
Store data in GPU-memory vertex buffers
Draw large batches with each draw primitives call (thousands of primitives)
Use triangles mostly >= 16 pixels on screen
Don't use the Geometry Shader (especially for geometry amplification)
Do all of those things, and any machine today should be able to render tens or hundreds of thousands of triangles with ease.
According to this page, a polygon is n-sided in Direct3d.
In C#:
public static Mesh Polygon(
Device device,
float length,
int sides
)
As others already said, polygons here means triangles.
Main advantage of triangles is that, since 3 points define a plane, triangles are coplanar by definition. This means that every point within the triangle is exactly defined as a linear combination of polygon points. More vertices aren't necessarily coplanar, and they don't define a unique curved plane.
An advantage more in mechanical modeling than in graphics is that triangles are also undeformable.
Related
This is a question to understand the principles of GPU accelerated rendering of 2d vector graphics.
With Skia or Direct2D, you can draw e.g. rounded rectangles, Bezier curves, polygons, and also have some effects like blur.
Skia / Direct2D offer CPU and GPU based rendering.
For the CPU rendering, I can imagine more or less how e.g. a rounded rectangle is rendered. I have already seen a lot of different line rendering algorithms.
But for GPU, I don't have much of a clue.
Are rounded rectangles composed of triangles?
Are rounded rectangles drawn entirely by wild pixel shaders?
Are there some basic examples which could show me the basic prinicples of how such things work?
(Probably, the solution could also be found in the source code of Skia, but I fear that it would be so complex / generic that a noob like me would not understand anything.)
In case of direct2d, there is no source code, but since it uses d3d10/11 under the hood, it's easy enough to see what it does behind the scenes with Renderdoc.
Basically d2d tends to have a policy to minimize draw calls by trying to fit any geometry type into a single buffer, versus skia which has some dedicated shader sets depending on the shape type.
So for example, if you draw a bezier path, Skia will try to use tesselation shader if possible (which will need a new draw call if the previous element you were rendering was a rectangle), since you change pipeline state.
D2D, on the other side, tends to tesselate on the cpu, and push to some vertexbuffer, and switches draw call only if you change brush type (if you change from one solid color brush to another it can keep the same shaders, so it doesn't switch), or when the buffer is full, or if you switch from shape to text (since it then needs to send texture atlases).
Please note that when tessellating bezier path D2D does a very great work at making the resulting geometry non self intersecting (so alpha blending works properly even on some complex self intersecting path).
In case on rounded rectangle, it does the same, just tessellates into triangles.
This allows it to minimize draw calls to a good extent, as well as allowing anti alias on a non msaa surface (this is done at mesh level, with some small triangles with alpha). The downside of it is that it doesn't use much hardware feature, and geometry emitted can be quite high, even for seemingly simple shapes).
Since d2d prefers to use triangle strips instead or triangle list, it can do some really funny things when drawing a simple list of triangles.
For text, d2d use instancing and draws one instanced quad per character, it is also good at batching those, so if you call some draw text functions several times in a row, it will try to merge this into a single call as well.
I'm looking for an efficient way to display lots of spheres using directx 11. The spheres are defined by (x,y,z,r) where (x,y,z) are coordinates in space and r is the radius. I want to display only the spheres that can be seen, meaning that spheres that are not in the field of view and spheres that are too small to be seen wouldn't be drawn. However, if a group of spheres smaller than one pixel is at least as big as one pixel, then I want to display the most predominant color. Spheres have only one color and different levels of transparency. Any help would be appreciated and incomplete answers are acceptable.
You need several things. First an indexed unit sphere geometry, second a buffer to store the sphere instance properties ( position, radius and color ) and third a small buffer for the API parameters yet to come. The three combines in a single 'ID3D11DeviceContext::DrawIndexedInstancedIndirect'
The remaining question is "how to feed the instance buffer ?". cpu is easy, just apply frustum culling, sort back to front because of the transparency and apply a merge based on the screen projection, update the buffer and use 'ID3D11DeviceContext::DrawIndexedInstanced'.
gpu version will do the same thing with compute shaders but will be harder to implement. The advantage, zero cpu/gpu synchronization and should support far more instance.
If tessellation gives a bonus over just using high-poly models,then why do modern 2012 games still use gigantic models that take a lot of hard disk space instead of tessellating it all and just adjusting the tessellation factor to depend on distance from camera,creating a nice level of detail.
You can't get back detail by tessellation that was not there in the first place. It just means those models would be even bigger without it being available.
In its most basic form, tessellation is a method of breaking down polygons into finer pieces. For example, if you take a square and cut it across its diagonal, you’ve “tessellated” this square into two triangles. By itself, tessellation does little to improve realism. For example, in a game, it doesn’t really matter if a square is rendered as two triangles or two thousand triangles—tessellation only improves realism if the new triangles are put to use in depicting new information.
When a displacement map (left) is applied to a flat surface, the
resulting surface (right) expresses the height information encoded in
the displacement map. The simplest and most popular way of putting the
new triangles to use is a technique called displacement mapping. A
displacement map is a texture that stores height information. When
applied to a surface, it allows vertices on the surface to be shifted
up or down based on the height information. For example, the graphics
artist can take a slab of marble and shift the vertices to form a
carving. Another popular technique is to apply displacement maps over
terrain to carve out craters, canyons, and peaks
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tessellation.html
I think the reason why nobody uses hardware tessellation in games is, that ca. 60% of all game player are console player and aslong the console doesnt support shadermodel5, there is no reason to do games that uses hardware tessellation. Even if they do, they may be have to do a game in dx9 and dx11 because it is not really good downward compatible... but maybe there is an other reason to!
With the new consoles comming out this year, maybe HW Tessellation gets an other change ;)
I have a 3d volume given by a binary space partition tree. Usually these are made from polygon models, and the splitted polygons already stored inside the tree nodes.
But mine is not, so I have no polygons. Every node has nothing but it's cut plane (given by normal and origin distance for example). Thus the tree still represent a solid 3d volume, defined by all the cuts made. However, for visualisation I need a polygonal mesh of this volume. How can that be reconstructed efficiently?
The crude method would be to convert the infinite half spaces of the leaves to large enough polhedrons (eg. cubes) and push every single one of them upwards the tree, cutting it by every node's plane it passes. That seems extremely costly, as the tree may be unbalanced (eg. if stupidly made from a convex polyhedra). Is there any classic solution?
In order to recover the polygonal surface you need to intersect the planes. Where each vertex of a polygon is generated by an intersection of three planes and each edge by an intersection of 2 planes. But making this efficient and numerical stable is no trivial task. So i propose to use qhalf that is part of qhull. A documentation of the input and ouput of qhalf can be found here. Of course you can use qhull (and the functionality from qhalf) as a library.
From the oldest games to the very modern, it seems like you can still see through walls or most often the ground in some camera positions.
Why is collision difficult to effectively compute in graphics engines?
Is it rounding/loss of precision accumulating leading to a mis-rendered view?
This is not actually collision in the explicit sense. The camera position is probably not actually "inside" the wall or the ground in those situations, but it is simply very close to it.
In computer 3D graphics the camera has a concept of a near plane and a far plane. Only geometry located between these two planes will be visible, while the rest will be clipped. If you are too close to something and align the camera correctly, then chances are that some parts of the geometry will be too close to the camera as defined by the near plane and as a result that geometry will not be rendered.
Now, the distance to this near plane can be set by the developers, and it can be set to be very short - short enough to ensure that situations like these cannot occur. However, the depth buffer or z buffer that is used to determine which objects are closest to the camera during rendering, and thus which objects to render and which not to render, is closely related to the near and far plane distances.
In graphics hardware the depth buffer is represented using a fixed amount of bits for each pixel, for example 32 bits. These 32 bits must be enough to accurately represent the entire span between the near plane and the far plane. It is also not linear, but will use more precision closer to the camera. As a result, choosing a very small near plane distance will greatly reduce the overall precision of the depth buffer. This can cause annoying flickering throughout the entire scene wherever two objects are very close to each others.
You can read more about this issue here as well as section 12.040 here.
It's not about difficulty (of course, it's not easy to compute collision/clipping of non-convex object), but you still have only like ~33ms to compute whole frame, so some compromise have to be made (collision mesh is not the same like mesh you really see). If there is no time for precise solution (to fulfill all conditions - camera distance, object which have to be seen, collision avoidance), you have to fallback to some "easy" solution like see through the wall.