So I basically have some fair knowledge of Opengl 4.0. In OpenGL you can render the same object at many places. This is a technique called Instancing. This saves up some CPU calls or something.
I wanted to do this in Godot. So I looked up in the docs and it basically just tells me to duplicate an object. But I think this does not save the CPU calls to the GPU, like how Instancing does (please let me know if I'm wrong about this).
Plus I cannot have all the nodes beforehand. Because the number of times I need to render the object(at different places) is determined during runtime and can change.
Is there a solution to this?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thank you
Instancing can be thought of as making copies of an object from a blueprint. The reason it saves memory and draw calls is that essentially, only the "blueprint" must be kept in memory. The recommended way that Godot addresses this (as per the documentation) is through (packed) scenes.
To do this, create the object as it's own scene - remember that you can right click on the root node of a scene (even an empty one) and change the type to whatever you want. Once you have the object set up the way you like, save it as it's own scene (ex: myInstance.tscn).
From there, you can call upon the instance from your main scene (or whatever scene you need it in). To do this you need to do a couple of things:
First, create a variable for your instance in the script you want to call it from by declaring something like onready var instancedObject = preload("res://myInstance.tscn"). (Using whatever path you used for the scene).
From there, you call the variable from whatever function you need by writing something like: var myObject = instancedObject.instance()
You then must add the instance to the current scene with add_child(myObject)
After this, you can (optionally) specify things like transforms and rotations to determine where the instance gets put (Ex: myObject.transform.origin = Vector3(0,10,0) - For 3D, or myObject.position = Vector2(10,0) for 2D)
Alternatively, you can initialize and instance the object at the same time by writing onready var instancedObject = preload(res://myInstance.tscn).instance(), and then adding it in functions by using add_child(instancedObject), however although it requires fewer steps, there are limitations to doing it this way, and I personally have had much more success using the first approach.
If, however, you are looking to instance multiple thousands of objects (or more) in the same scene, I recommend using Calinou's answer and using a MultiMeshInstance. However, one of the limitations of the MultiMeshInstance is that it uses an all or nothing approach to drawing, meaning all instances will either be all drawn at once, or not drawn at all. There is no in-between. This could be good or bad depending on what you need it for.
Hope this helps.
Instancing in Godot is handled using the MultiMeshInstance node. It's the instanced counterpart to MeshInstance. See Optimization using MultiMeshes in the documentation for more information.
Keep in mind MultiMeshes aren't suited if you need to move the objects in different directions every frame (although you can can achieve this by using INSTANCE_ID in a shader shared among all instances). MultiMeshInstance lets you change how many instances are visible by setting its visible_instance_count property.
Related
I'm learning Metal, and there's a conceptual question that I'm trying to wrap my head around: at what level, exactly, should my code handle successive drawing operations that require different pipeline states? As I understand it (from answers like this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/43827775/2752221), I can use a single MTLRenderCommandEncoder and change its pipeline state, the vertex buffer it's using, etc., between calls to drawPrimitives:, and the encoder state that was current at the time of each call to drawPrimitives: will be preserved. So that's great. But it also seems like the design of Metal is such that one can make multiple MTLRenderCommandEncoder instances, and use them to sequentially throw batches of commands into a MTLCommandBuffer. Given that the former works – using one MTLRenderCommandEncoder and changing its state – why would one do the latter? Under what circumstances is it correct to do the former, and under what circumstances is it necessary to do the latter? What is an example of a situation where the latter would be necessary/appropriate?
If it matters, I'm working on a macOS app, using Objective-C. Thanks.
Ignoring multithreaded encoding cases, which are somewhat advanced, the main reason you'd want to create multiple render command encoders during a frame is because you need to change which textures you're rendering to.
You'll notice that you need to provide a render pass descriptor when creating a render command encoder. For this reason, we often say that the sequence of commands belonging to a particular encoder constitute a render pass. The attachments of that descriptor refer to the textures that will be written to by the commands encoded by the encoder.
Many different techniques, including shadow mapping and postprocessing effects like bloom require multiple passes to produce. Since you can't change attachments in the midst of a pass, creating a new encoder is the only way to encode multiple passes in a frame.
Relatedly, you should ordinarily use one command buffer per frame. You can, however, sometimes reduce frame time by splitting your passes across multiple command buffers, but this is highly dependent on the shape of your workload and should only be done in tandem with profiling, as it's not always an optimization.
In addition to Warren's answer, another way to look at the question is by examining the API. A number of Metal objects are created from descriptors. The properties of the descriptor at the time an object is created from it govern that object for its lifetime. Those are aspects of the object that can't be changed after creation.
By contrast, the object will have various setter methods to modify other properties over its lifetime.
For a render command encoder, the properties that are fixed for its lifetime are those specified by the MTLRenderPassDescriptor used to create it. If you want to render with different values for any of those properties, the only way to do so is to create a new encoder from a different descriptor. On the other hand, if you can do everything you need/want to do by using the encoder's setter methods, then you don't need a new encoder.
I'm trying to de-spaghetti a big UI by creating SubVIs that handle only the controls that are relevant, via control refnums.
Now, when extracting the code from the main VI and re-wiring into the subVIs, things get clutter-y.
To read/write these refnums, I have to do a two-step process. First add a terminal to get the control refnum value and then another to get the value of the control.
Wiring the refnums everywhere is not really an option as that will create more spaghetti if there are more than two of them. (usually 4-10)
Is there a better way?
UPDATE
Guys, this is a low-level question about the picture above, not really a queston about large scale architecture / design patterns. I'm using QMH, classes, et.al. where appropriate.
I just feel there should be a way to get the typed value from a typed control ref in one step. It feels kind of common.
In the caller VI, where the controls/indicators actually live, create all your references, then bundle them into clusters of relevant pieces. Pass the clusters into your subVIs, giving a given subVI only the cluster it needs. This both keeps your conpane cleaned up and and makes it clear the interface that each subVI is talking to. Instead of a cluster, you may want to create a LV class to further encapsulate and define the sub-UI operations, but that's generally only on larger projects where some components of the UI will be reused in other UIs.
I'm not sure there is a low-touch way to de-spaghetti a UI with lots of controls and indicators.
My suggestion is to rework the top-level VI into a queued message handler, which would allow you to decouple the user interaction from the application's response. In other words, rather than moving both the controls and the code that handles their changes to subVIs (as you're currently doing), this would keep the controls where they are (so you don't need to use ref nums and property nodes) and only move the code to subVIs.
This design pattern is built-in to recent versions of LabVIEW: navigate to File » Create Project to make LabVIEW generate a project you can evaluate. For more information about understanding how to extend and customize it, see this NI slide deck: Decisions Behind the Design of the
Queued Message Handler Template.
In general, it is not the best practice to read/write value using refnum in perspective of performance. It requires a thread swap to the UI thread each time (which is a heavy process), whereas the FP Terminal is privileged to be able to update the panel without switching execution threads and without mutex friction.
Using references to access value
Requires to update the front panel item every single time they are called.
They are a pass by reference function as opposed to a pass by value function. This means they are essentially pointers to specific memory locations. The pointers must be de-referenced, and then the value in memory updated. The process of de-referencing the variables causes them to be slower than Controls/Indicators, or Local Variables.
Property Nodes cause the front panel of a SubVI to remain in memory, which increases memory use. If the front panel of a SubVI is not displayed, remove property nodes to decrease memory use.
If after this you want to use this method you can use VI scripting to speed up the process: http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/209110
I'm writing a game for Mac OS using cocos2D and Box2D. I've added a b2ContactListener subclass to my world as follows:
contactListener = new ContactListener();
world->SetContactListener(contactListener);
This works perfectly, but I am unsure of the best/accepted way to access the contact listener from other classes that don't currently have a direct reference to the contact listener.
I know I can pass a reference to other classes that need it, but what I was wondering is if there is a better way. More specifically, although I can't find a method to do this, is there some equivalent of this:
world->GetContactListener();
in Box2D?
The reason I am trying to do this is simply because I would prefer to move some game logic (i.e. whether a body is able to jump based on information from the contact listener) to the relevant classes themselves, rather than putting everything in the main gameplay class.
Thanks!
A contact listener just serves as an entry point for the four functions BeginContact, EndContact, PreSolve and PostSolve. Typically it has no member variables, so there is no reason to get it, because there is nothing to get from it.
When one of these functions is called during a world Step, you can make a note of which two things touched/stopped touching etc, but you should not change anything in the world right away, until the time step is complete.
I think the crux of this question is the method used to 'make a note' of which things touched, but that's really up to you and depends on what kind of information you need. For example if you're only interested in BeginContact, then the absolute simplest way might be to just store which two fixtures touched as a list of pairs:
std::vector< std::pair<b2Fixture*, b2Fixture*> > thingsThatTouched;
//in BeginContact
thingsThatTouched.push_back( make_pair(contact->GetFixtureA(), contact->GetFixtureB()) );
//after the time step
for (int i = 0; i < thingsThatTouched.size(); i++) {
b2Fixture* fixtureA = thingsThatTouched[i].first;
b2Fixture* fixtureB = thingsThatTouched[i].second;
// ... do something clever ...
}
thingsThatTouched.clear(); //important!!
For this to work you'll need to make the thingsThatTouched list visible from the contact listener function, so it could either be a global variable, or you could set a pointer to it in the contact listener class, or maybe have a global function that returns a pointer to the list.
If you need to keep track of more information such as what things stopped touching, or do something after the time step based on how hard things impacted when they touched etc, it will take a bit more work and becomes more specific. You might find these tutorials useful:
This one uses BeginContact/EndContact to update a list of which other things a body is touching, and uses it to decide if a player can jump at any given time:
http://www.iforce2d.net/b2dtut/jumpability
This one uses a similar method to look at what type of surfaces are currently under a car tire, to decide how much friction the surface has:
http://www.iforce2d.net/b2dtut/top-down-car
This one uses PreSolve to decide whether two bodies (arrow and target) should stick together when they collide, based on the speed of the impact. The actual 'sticking together' processing is done after the time step finishes:
http://www.iforce2d.net/b2dtut/sticky-projectiles
I think you simply can call GetContactList and then process all the contacts using iterator if you need to do it in some other place
For a 2D game I'm making (for Android) I'm using a component-based system where a GameObject holds several GameComponent objects. GameComponents can be things such as input components, rendering components, bullet emitting components, and so on. Currently, GameComponents have a reference to the object that owns them and can modify it, but the GameObject itself just has a list of components and it doesn't care what the components are as long as they can be updated when the object is updated.
Sometimes a component has some information which the GameObject needs to know. For example, for collision detection a GameObject registers itself with the collision detection subsystem to be notified when it collides with another object. The collision detection subsystem needs to know the object's bounding box. I store x and y in the object directly (because it is used by several components), but width and height are only known to the rendering component which holds the object's bitmap. I would like to have a method getBoundingBox or getWidth in the GameObject that gets that information. Or in general, I want to send some information from a component to the object. However, in my current design the GameObject doesn't know what specific components it has in the list.
I can think of several ways to solve this problem:
Instead of having a completely generic list of components, I can let the GameObject have specific field for some of the important components. For example, it can have a member variable called renderingComponent; whenever I need to get the width of the object I just use renderingComponent.getWidth(). This solution still allows for generic list of components but it treats some of them differently, and I'm afraid I'll end up having several exceptional fields as more components need to be queried. Some objects don't even have rendering components.
Have the required information as members of the GameObject but allow the components to update it. So an object has a width and a height which are 0 or -1 by default, but a rendering component can set them to the correct values in its update loop. This feels like a hack and I might end up pushing many things to the GameObject class for convenience even if not all objects need them.
Have components implement an interface that indicates what type of information they can be queried for. For example, a rendering component would implement the HasSize interface which includes methods such as getWidth and getHeight. When the GameObject needs the width, it loops over its components checking if they implement the HasSize interface (using the instanceof keyword in Java, or is in C#). This seems like a more generic solution, one disadvantage is that searching for the component might take some time (but then, most objects have 3 or 4 components only).
This question isn't about a specific problem. It comes up often in my design and I was wondering what's the best way to handle it. Performance is somewhat important since this is a game, but the number of components per object is generally small (the maximum is 8).
The short version
In a component based system for a game, what is the best way to pass information from the components to the object while keeping the design generic?
We get variations on this question three or four times a week on GameDev.net (where the gameobject is typically called an 'entity') and so far there's no consensus on the best approach. Several different approaches have been shown to be workable however so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
However, usually the problems regard communicating between components. Rarely do people worry about getting information from a component to the entity - if an entity knows what information it needs, then presumably it knows exactly what type of component it needs to access and which property or method it needs to call on that component to get the data. if you need to be reactive rather than active, then register callbacks or have an observer pattern set up with the components to let the entity know when something in the component has changed, and read the value at that point.
Completely generic components are largely useless: they need to provide some sort of known interface otherwise there's little point them existing. Otherwise you may as well just have a large associative array of untyped values and be done with it. In Java, Python, C#, and other slightly-higher-level languages than C++ you can use reflection to give you a more generic way of using specific subclasses without having to encode type and interface information into the components themselves.
As for communication:
Some people are making assumptions that an entity will always contain a known set of component types (where each instance is one of several possible subclasses) and therefore can just grab a direct reference to the other component and read/write via its public interface.
Some people are using publish/subscribe, signals/slots, etc., to create arbitrary connections between components. This seems a bit more flexible but ultimately you still need something with knowledge of these implicit dependencies. (And if this is known at compile time, why not just use the previous approach?)
Or, you can put all shared data in the entity itself and use that as a shared communication area (tenuously related to the blackboard system in AI) that each of the components can read and write to. This usually requires some robustness in the face of certain properties not existing when you expected them to. It also doesn't lend itself to parallelism, although I doubt that's a massive concern on a small embedded system...?
Finally, some people have systems where the entity doesn't exist at all. The components live within their subsystems and the only notion of an entity is an ID value in certain components - if a Rendering component (within the Rendering system) and a Player component (within the Players system) have the same ID, then you can assume the former handles the drawing of the latter. But there isn't any single object that aggregates either of those components.
Like others have said, there's no always right answer here. Different games will lend themselves towards different solutions. If you're building a big complex game with lots of different kinds of entities, a more decoupled generic architecture with some kind of abstract messaging between components may be worth the effort for the maintainability you get. For a simpler game with similar entities, it may make the most sense to just push all of that state up into GameObject.
For your specific scenario where you need to store the bounding box somewhere and only the collision component cares about it, I would:
Store it in the collision component itself.
Make the collision detection code work with the components directly.
So, instead of having the collision engine iterate through a collection of GameObjects to resolve the interaction, have it iterate directly through a collection of CollisionComponents. Once a collision has occurred, it will be up to the component to push that up to its parent GameObject.
This gives you a couple of benefits:
Leaves collision-specific state out of GameObject.
Spares you from iterating over GameObjects that don't have collision components. (If you have a lot of non-interactive objects like visual effects and decoration, this can save a decent number of cycles.)
Spares you from burning cycles walking between the object and its component. If you iterate through the objects then do getCollisionComponent() on each one, that pointer-following can cause a cache miss. Doing that for every frame for every object can burn a lot of CPU.
If you're interested I have more on this pattern here, although it looks like you already understand most of what's in that chapter.
Use an "event bus". (note that you probably can't use the code as is but it should give you the basic idea).
Basically, create a central resource where every object can register itself as a listener and say "If X happens, I want to know". When something happens in the game, the responsible object can simply send an event X to the event bus and all interesting parties will notice.
[EDIT] For a more detailed discussion, see message passing (thanks to snk_kid for pointing this out).
One approach is to initialize a container of components. Each component can provide a service and may also require services from other components. Depending on your programming language and environment you have to come up with a method for providing this information.
In its simplest form you have one-to-one connections between components, but you will also need one-to-many connections. E.g. the CollectionDetector will have a list of components implementing IBoundingBox.
During initialization the container will wire up connections between components, and during run-time there will be no additional cost.
This is close to you solution 3), expect the connections between components are wired only once and are not checked at every iteration of the game loop.
The Managed Extensibility Framework for .NET is a nice solution to this problem. I realize that you intend to develop on Android, but you may still get some inspiration from this framework.
I often find myself needing reference to an object that is several objects away, or so it seems. The options I see are passing a reference through a middle-man or just making something available statically. I understand the danger of global scope, but passing a reference through an object that does nothing with it feels ridiculous. I'm okay with a little bit passing around, I suppose. I suspect there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Does anyone have insight on where to draw this line?
Or a good way to deal with the problem of distributing references amongst dependent objects?
Use the Law of Demeter (with moderation and good taste, not dogmatically). If you're coding a.b.c.d.e, something IS wrong -- you've nailed forevermore the implementation of a to have a b which has a c which... EEP!-) One or at the most two dots is the maximum you should be using. But the alternative is NOT to plump things into globals (and ensure thread-unsafe, buggy, hard-to-maintain code!), it is to have each object "surface" those characteristics it is designed to maintain as part of its interface to clients going forward, instead of just letting poor clients go through such undending chains of nested refs!
This smells of an abstraction that may need some improvement. You seem to be violating the Law of Demeter.
In some cases a global isn't too bad.
Consider, you're probably programming against an operating system's API. That's full of globals, you can probably access a file or the registry, write to the console. Look up a window handle. You can do loads of stuff to access state that is global across the whole computer, or even across the internet... and you don't have to pass a single reference to your class to access it. All this stuff is global if you access the OS's API.
So, when you consider the number of global things that often exist, a global in your own program probably isn't as bad as many people try and make out and scream about.
However, if you want to have very nice OO code that is all unit testable, I suppose you should be writing wrapper classes around any access to globals whether they come from the OS, or are declared yourself to encapsulate them. This means you class that uses this global state can get references to the wrappers, and they could be replaced with fakes.
Hmm, anyway. I'm not quite sure what advice I'm trying to give here, other than say, structuring code is all a balance! And, how to do it for your particular problem depends on your preferences, preferences of people who will use the code, how you're feeling on the day on the academic to pragmatic scale, how big the code base is, how safety critical the system is and how far off the deadline for completion is.
I believe your question is revealing something about your classes. Maybe the responsibilities could be improved ? Maybe moving some code would solve problems ?
Tell, don't ask.
That's how it was explained to me. There is a natural tendency to call classes to obtain some data. Taken too far, asking too much, typically leads to heavy "getter sequences". But there is another way. I must admit it is not easy to find, but improves gradually in a specific code and in the coder's habits.
Class A wants to perform a calculation, and asks B's data. Sometimes, it is appropriate that A tells B to do the job, possibly passing some parameters. This could replace B's "getName()", used by A to check the validity of the name, by an "isValid()" method on B.
"Asking" has been replaced by "telling" (calling a method that executes the computation).
For me, this is the question I ask myself when I find too many getter calls. Gradually, the methods encounter their place in the correct object, and everything gets a bit simpler, I have less getters and less call to them. I have less code, and it provides more semantic, a better alignment with the functional requirement.
Move the data around
There are other cases where I move some data. For example, if a field moves two objects up, the length of the "getter chain" is reduced by two.
I believe nobody can find the correct model at first.
I first think about it (using hand-written diagrams is quick and a big help), then code it, then think again facing the real thing... Then I code the rest, and any smells I feel in the code, I think again...
Split and merge objects
If a method on A needs data from C, with B as a middle man, I can try if A and C would have some in common. Possibly, A or a part of A could become C (possible splitting of A, merging of A and C) ...
However, there are cases where I keep the getters of course.
But it's less likely a long chain will be created.
A long chain will probably get broken by one of the techniques above.
I have three patterns for this:
Pass the necessary reference to the object's constructor -- the reference can then be stored as a data member of the object, and doesn't need to be passed again; this implies that the object's factory has the necessary reference. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, I pass the element name to the DOM node when I construct the DOM node.
Let things remember their parent, and get references to properties via their parent; this implies that the parent or ancestor has the necessary property. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, there are various things which are stored as properties of the top-level DomDocument ancestor, and its child nodes can access those properties via the reference which each one has to its parent.
Put all the different things which are passed around as references into a single class, and then pass around just that one class instance as the only thing that's passed around. For example, there are many properties required to render a DOM (e.g. the GDI graphics handle, the viewport coordinates, callback events, etc.) ... I put all of these things into a single 'Context' instance which is passed as the only parameter to the methods of the DOM nodes to be rendered, and each method can get whichever properties it needs out of that context parameter.