This is entirely a theoretical question because I understand the time it would take to do such a thing would be ridiculous
I've been working with "voxels" a lot lately and the only way I can display them to a user is to either triangulate the visible surfaces or make a CPU ray-tracer but both come with their own problems.
Simply put, if we dismiss the storage space needed for voxel meshs and targeted a very specific GPU would someone who was wanting to create a graphics API like OpenGL but with "true" voxel primitives that don't need to be converted be able to make such thing or are GPUs designed specifically for triangles with no way to introduce a new base primitive?
Its possible and it was already done many times
games like Minecraft,SpaceEngineers...
3D printing tools and slicers
MRI/PET scans tools
Yes rendering on GPU is possible with the two base methods you mention. Games usually use the transform to boundary representation 3D geometry. With rise of shaders even ray tracers are now possible here mine:
simple GLSL voxel ray tracer
using native OpenGL architecture and passing geometry as 3D texture. In order to obtain speed you need to add BVH or similar spatial subdivision of geometry...
However voxel based tools have been here for quite some time. For example many isometric games/engines are voxel based (tile is a voxel) like this one:
Improving performance of click detection on a staggered column isometric grid
Also do you remember UFO ? It was playable on x286 and it was also "voxel/tile" based isometric.
Related
I have a Windows application that currently renders graphics largely using MFC that I'd like to change to get better use out of the GPU. Most of the graphics are straightforward and could easily be built up into a scene graph, but some of the graphics could prove very difficult. Specifically, in addition to the normal mesh type objects, I'm also dealing with point clouds which are liable to contain billions of Cartesian stored in a very compact manner that use quite a lot of custom culling techniques to be displayed in real time (Example). What I'm looking for is a mechanism that does the bulk of the scene rendering to a buffer and then gives me access to that buffer, a z buffer, and camera parameters such that I can modify them before putting them out to the display. I'm wondering whether this is possible with Direct3D, OpenGL or possibly use a higher level framework like OpenSceneGraph, and what would be the best starting point? Given the software is Windows based, I'd probably prefer to use Direct3D as this is likely to lead to fewest driver issues which I'm eager to avoid. OpenSceneGraph seems to provide custom culling via octrees, which are close but not identical to what I'm using.
Edit: To clarify a bit more, currently I have the following;
A display list / scene in memory which will typically contain up to a few million triangles, lines, and pieces of text, which I cull in software and output to a bitmap using low performing drawing primitives
A point cloud in memory which may contain billions of points in a highly compressed format (~4.5 bytes per 3d point) which I cull and output to the same bitmap
Cursor information that gets added to the bitmap prior to output
A camera, z-buffer and attribute buffers for navigation and picking purposes
The slow bit is the highlighted part of section 1 which I'd like to replace with GPU rendering of some kind. The solution I envisage is to build a scene for the GPU, render it to a bitmap (with matching z-buffer) based on my current camera parameters and then add my point cloud prior to output.
Alternatively, I could move to a scene based framework that managed the cameras and navigation for me and provide points in view as spheres or splats based on volume and level of detail during the rendering loop. In this scenario I'd also need to be able add cursor information to the view.
In either scenario, the hosting application will be MFC C++ based on VS2017 which would require too much work to change for the purposes of this exercise.
It's hard to say exactly based on your description of a complex problem.
OSG can probably do what you're looking for.
Depending on your timeframe, I'd consider eschewing both OpenGL (OSG) and DirectX in favor of the newer Vulkan 3D API. It's a successor to both D3D and OGL, and is designed by the GPU manufacturers themselves to provide optimal performance exceeding both of its predecessors.
The OSG project is currently developing a Vulkan scenegraph known as VSG, which already demonstrates superior performance to OSG and will have more generalized culling ability.
I've worked a bunch with point clouds and am pretty experienced with them, but I'm not exactly clear on what you're proposing to do.
If you want to actually have a verbal discussion about the matter, I'm pretty easy to find (my company is AlphaPixel -- AlphaPixel.com) and you could call us. I'm in the European time zone right now, it's not clear from your question where you are but you sound US-based.
For the sake of theory (and general understanding),
I would like to understand in a moderately exhaustive list of all the things that must be done in order to create a "modern" 3D Game Engine (from a coder's perspective)
I seem to have a hard time finding this information anywhere else, so I think that you guys at Stack overflow will have the knowledge I seek.
In terms of "moderately exhaustive", I mean such things as a general explanation of the design stages of such engine, such as Binary Space Partitioning, then actual implementation of such an engine, and the uses of the software ( it would be helpful if the means of rendering other than BSP could be explained).
I don't want to make a 3D Engine, but simply understand what sheer amount of effort is required to make one.
Focusing on 3D rendering alone:
Binary space partitioning, like many elements of 3d rendering, is optional. In this case, it is an optimization, allowing the computer to do less work to render a scene, by cutting out invisible sections.
At its core, rendering is simply a five stage process. First, a list of triangles is generated. Next, the triangles are converted from 3-space to 2-space using matrix multiplication. Next, the triangles are filled in with pixels and meta information. Finally, the pixels are shaded individually using the meta-information. Extra finally, the pixels are drawn to the screen.
Most of those steps are partially or wholly done by a graphics card, meaning the programmer's job is to tell the card which step to perform and provide the input data.
This bare bones engine is not even close to a modern engine, however. Modern engines will be filled with optimizations like binary space partitioning, mesh simplification, background loading and texture compression. They will also be filled with special features like shadows, mirrors, mist and particle effects.
Modern engines have to be able to load and interpret textures and meshes, and in some cases, deform and modify both at runtime. The most common example would be interpolating between keyframes.
Engines may need to interact with game logic modules in order to reuse data for collision detection. Collision detection being the thing that determines if bullets hit something and also the thing that makes makes walls and floors real.
I would like to add terrain to my project, which uses OSG.
I've read osgTerrain documentation. As I understand from it's interface, it treats data as uniform height field -- grid of heights.
I want terrain to be non-uniform. It would be represented as triangulation wuth height specified at vertices.
Does osgTerrain supports this out of the box? Or should I implement myself, deriving from Layer? Where to find extensive docs? Where to start from?
osgTerrain at one point, through the VPB tool, supported irregular triangulated terrain models. There's nothing in OSG itself that prevents you from doing this still. However, I must question your reasons for doing so. Are you looking for performance? The reason osg uses regular heightfields now is that with modern GPUs, they're just as fast as the old indexed triangles. Are you planning on doing some modifications to the terrain at runtime that requires a irregular mesh?
Also, you might consider osgEarth. It is sort of the replacement terrain subsystem for OSG. It is much more feature-filled than osgTerrain. It uses quadtrees of regular grids too though.
I want to evaluate the performance of several SDKs / frameworks for depth cameras. These cameras can either be using Time-of-Flight or structured light.
The framework should be capable (at least) of person tracking / blob detection and gesture recognition.
So far I found the following frameworks:
OpenNI (structured light only)
Microsoft Kinect SDK (Kinect only)
Beckon SDK by Omek Interactive (ToF and structured light)
iisu by SoftKinetic (ToF and structured light)
Are there any other frameworks I should be aware of?
EDIT: I found this article by Techradar that seems to indicate that these are indeed the only options currently available.
Any feedback would be very much appreciated!
I have found some interesting links on this. You can take MIT's approach using CodAC . They list lots of facts on this post, the most important ones I will post here.
9. What are limitations of this technique?
The main limitation of our framework is inapplicability to scenes with curvilinear
objects, which would require extensions of the current mathematical model.
Another limitation is that a periodic light source creates a wrap-around error
as it does in other TOF devices. For scenes in which surfaces have high reflectance
or texture variations, availability of a traditional 2D image prior to our data
acquisition allows for improved depth map reconstruction as discussed in our paper.
10. What are advantages of this technique/device and how does it
compare with existing TOF-based range sensing techniques?
In laser scanning, spatial resolution is limited by the scanning time.
TOF cameras do not provide high spatial resolution because they rely on a
low-resolution 2D pixel array of range-sensing pixels. CoDAC is a single-sensor,
high spatial resolution depth camera which works by exploiting the sparsity of natural
scene structure.
11. What is the range resolution and spatial resolution of the CoDAC system?
We have demonstrated sub-centimeter range resolution in our experiments.
This is significantly better than fundamental limit of about 10 cm that would
arise from using a detector with 0.7 nanosecond rise time if we were not using
parametric signal modeling. The improvement in range resolution comes from the
parametric modeling and deconvolution in our framework. We refer the reader to
our publications for complete details and analysis.
We have demonstrated 64-by-64 pixel spatial resolution,
as this is the spatial resolution of our spatial light modulator.
Spatially patterning with a digital micromirror device (DMD) will enable
much higher spatial resolution. Our experiments use only 205 projection patterns,
which correspond to just 5% of number of pixels in the reconstructed depth map.
This is a significant improvement over raster scanning in LIDAR, and it is
obtained without the 2D sensor array used in TOF cameras.
Also another interesting project I found on Youtube uses libfreenect and libusb
There is also dSensingNI which is described as
This work presents an approach to overcome the disadvantages of existing interaction
frameworks and technologies for touch detection and object interaction. The robust and
easy to use framework dSensingNI (Depth Sensing Natural Interaction) is described,
which supports multitouch and tangible interaction with arbitrary objects. It uses
images from a depth-sensing camera and provides tracking of users fingers of palm of
hands and combines this with object interaction, such as grasping, grouping and
stacking, which can be used for advanced interaction techniques.
So you have hit most of them out there, especially that use Kinect, but there are a few other options out there! Hope this Helps!
As the title says, I'm fleshing out a design for a 2D platformer engine. It's still in the design stage, but I'm worried that I'll be running into issues with the renderer, and I want to avoid them if they will be a concern.
I'm using SDL for my base library, and the game will be set up to use a single large array of Uint16 to hold the tiles. These index into a second array of "tile definitions" that are used by all parts of the engine, from collision handling to the graphics routine, which is my biggest concern.
The graphics engine is designed to run at a 640x480 resolution, with 32x32 tiles. There are 21x16 tiles drawn per layer per frame (to handle the extra tile that shows up when scrolling), and there are up to four layers that can be drawn. Layers are simply separate tile arrays, but the tile definition array is common to all four layers.
What I'm worried about is that I want to be able to take advantage of transparencies and animated tiles with this engine, and as I'm not too familiar with designs I'm worried that my current solution is going to be too inefficient to work well.
My target FPS is a flat 60 frames per second, and with all four layers being drawn, I'm looking at 21x16x4x60 = 80,640 separate 32x32px tiles needing to be drawn every second, plus however many odd-sized blits are needed for sprites, and this seems just a little excessive. So, is there a better way to approach rendering the tilemap setup I have? I'm looking towards possibilities of using hardware acceleration to draw the tilemaps, if it will help to improve performance much. I also want to hopefully be able to run this game well on slightly older computers as well.
If I'm looking for too much, then I don't think that reducing the engine's capabilities is out of the question.
I think the thing that will be an issue is the sheer amount of draw calls, rather than the total "fill rate" of all the pixels you are drawing. Remember - that is over 80000 calls per second that you must make. I think your biggest improvement will be to batch these together somehow.
One strategy to reduce the fill-rate of the tiles and layers would be to composite static areas together. For example, if you know an area doesn't need updating, it can be cached. A lot depends of if the layers are scrolled independently (parallax style).
Also, Have a look on Google for "dirty rectangles" and see if any schemes may fit your needs.
Personally, I would just try it and see. This probably won't affect your overall game design, and if you have good separation between logic and presentation, you can optimise the tile drawing til the cows come home.
Make sure to use alpha transparency only on tiles that actually use alpha, and skip drawing blank tiles. Make sure the tile surface color depth matches the screen color depth when possible (not really an option for tiles with an alpha channel), and store tiles in video memory, so sdl will use hardware acceleration when it can. Color key transparency will be faster than having a full alpha channel, for simple tiles where partial transparency or blending antialiased edges with the background aren't necessary.
On a 500mhz system you'll get about 6.8 cpu cycles per pixel per layer, or 27 per screen pixel, which (I believe) isn't going to be enough if you have full alpha channels on every tile of every layer, but should be fine if you take shortcuts like those mentioned where possible.
I agree with Kombuwa. If this is just a simple tile-based 2D game, you really ought to lower the standards a bit as this is not Crysis. 30FPS is very smooth (research Command & Conquer 3 which is limited to 30FPS). Even still, I had written a remote desktop viewer that ran at 14FPS (1900 x 1200) using GDI+ and it was still pretty smooth. I think that for your 2D game you'll probably be okay, especially using SDL.
Can you just buffer each complete layer into its view plus an additional tile size for all four ends(if you have vertical scrolling), use the buffer again to create a new buffer minus the first column and drawing on a new end column?
This would reduce a lot of needless redrawing.
Additionally, if you want a 60fps, you can look up ways to create frame skip methods for slower systems, skipping every other or every third draw phase.
I think you will be pleasantly surprised by how many of these tiles you can draw a second. Modern graphics hardware can fill a 1600x1200 framebuffer numerous times per frame at 60 fps, so your 640x480 framebuffer will be no problem. Try it and see what you get.
You should definitely take advantage of hardware acceleration. This will give you 1000x performance for very little effort on your part.
If you do find you need to optimise, then the simplest way is to only redraw the areas of the screen that have changed since the last frame. Sounds like you would need to know about any animating tiles, and any tiles that have changed state each frame. Depending on the game, this can be anywhere from no benefit at all, to a massive saving - it really depends on how much of the screen changes each frame.
You might consider merging neighbouring tiles with the same texture into a larger polygon with texture tiling (sort of a build process).
What about decreasing the frame rate to 30fps. I think it will be good enough for a 2D game.