Does Vulkan provide functionality to draw basic primitives? Point, Line, Rectangle, Filled Rectangle, Rounded Corner Rectangle, Filled Rounded Corner Rectangle, Circle, Filled Circle, etc.. ?
I don't believe there are any VkCmdDraw* commands that provide this functionality. If that is true, what needs to be done to draw simple primitives like this?
Vulkan is not vector graphics library. It is an API for your GPU.
It does have (square) Points and Lines though. But size other than 1 is optional. And any other high-level features you can think of are not part of the API, except those in VK_EXT_line_rasterization extension.
Rectangle can be a Line Strip of four lines.
Filled Rectangle is probably two filled triangles (resp. Triangle Strip primitive).
Rounded corners and Circles probably could be made by rendering the bounding rectangle, and discarding the unwanted parts of the shape in the Fragment Shader. Or something can be done with a Stencil Buffer. Or there is a Compute Shader, which can do anything. Alternatively they can be emulated with triangles.
There are no such utility functions in Vulkan. If you need to draw a certain primitive you need to provide vertices (and indices) yourself. So if you e.g. want to draw a circle you need to calculate the vertices using standard trigonometric functions, and provide them for your draw calls using a buffer.
This means creating a buffer via vkCreateBuffer, allocating the memory required to store your data into that buffer via vkAllocateMemory and after mapping that buffer into host memory you can copy your primitive's vertices (and/or indices) to such a buffer.
If you're on a nun-unified memory architecture (i.e. desktop GPUs) you also want to upload that data from host to the device for best performance then.
Once you've got a buffer setup, backed by memory and your values stored in that buffer you can draw your primitive using vkCmdDraw*commands.
All available types of primitives are defined in the standard, and can be set through the VkPrimitiveTopology member topology in VkPipelineInputAssemblyStateCreateInfo.
The manual page of VkPrimitiveTopology states the following possible values:
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_POINT_LIST = 0,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_LINE_LIST = 1,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_LINE_STRIP = 2,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_LIST = 3,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_STRIP = 4,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_FAN = 5,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_LINE_LIST_WITH_ADJACENCY = 6,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_LINE_STRIP_WITH_ADJACENCY = 7,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_LIST_WITH_ADJACENCY = 8,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_STRIP_WITH_ADJACENCY = 9,
VK_PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_PATCH_LIST = 10,
You may also need to change polygonMode, if you're rendering a shape you don't want filled.
I don't know if this is any good help, but I have used geometry shaders with OpenGL to draw circles and ellipses. This works by adding a uniform value stating the amount of subdivision and the radius, and then generate a bunch of triangles or a bunch of lines (depending on whether it should be filled or "wireframe". This required a little trigonometry (sin and cos). For filled circles I would use triangle-fan primitive, and for wireframe circles I would use line-loop. For Vulkan: whichever primitive is available, as #theRPGMaster suggested.
I hear many places that geometry shaders are very slow to use, comparably, so that should probably not be your go-to choice, as I assume you picked Vulkan for performance reasons. On thing that geometry shaders could be good for, is the rectangular selection box you see in e.g. Windows Explorer when holding down left mouse button and moving the cursor. At least I found that to work well.
From what I have seen of Vulkan so far it seems even more barebones than OpenGL is, so I would expect nothing in terms of supporting this kind of thing.
Related
I'm working on a fork of Pleasant3D.
When rotating an object being displayed the object always rotates around the same point relative to to itself even if that point is not at the center of the view (e.g. because the user has panned to move the object in the view).
I would like to change this so that the view always rotates the object around the point at the center of the view as it appears to the user instead of the center of the object.
Here is the core of the current code that rotates the object around its center (slightly simplified) (from here):
glLoadIdentity();
// midPlatform is the offset to reach the "middle" of the object (or more specifically the platform on which the object sits) in the x/y dimension.
// This the point around which the view is currently rotated.
Vector3 *midPlatform = [self.currentMachine calcMidBuildPlatform];
glTranslatef((GLfloat)cameraTranslateX - midPlatform.x,
(GLfloat)cameraTranslateY - midPlatform.y,
(GLfloat)cameraOffset);
// trackBallRotation and worldRotation come from trackball.h/c which appears to be
// from an Apple OpenGL sample.
if (trackBallRotation[0] != 0.0f) {
glRotatef (trackBallRotation[0], trackBallRotation[1], trackBallRotation[2], trackBallRotation[3]);
}
// accumlated world rotation via trackball
glRotatef (worldRotation[0], worldRotation[1], worldRotation[2], worldRotation[3]);
glTranslatef(midPlatform.x, midPlatform.y, 0.);
// Now draw object...
What transformations do I need to apply in what order to get the effect I desire?
Some of what I've tried so far
As I understand it this is what the current code does:
"OpenGL performs matrices multiplications in reverse order if multiple transforms are applied to a vertex" (from here). This means that the first transformation to be applied is actually the last one in the code above. It moves the center of the view (0,0) to the center of the object.
This point is then used as the center of rotation for the next two transformations (the rotations).
Finally the midPlatform translation is done in reverse to move the center back to the original location and the XY translations (panning) done by the user is applied. Here also the "camera" is moved away from the object to the proper location (indicated by cameraOffset).
This seems straightforward enough. So what I need to change is instead of translating the center of the view to the center of the object (midPlatform) I need to translate it to the current center of the view as seen by the user, right?
Unfortunately this is where the transformations start affecting each other in interesting ways and I am running into trouble.
I tried changing the code to this:
glLoadIdentity();
glTranslatef(0,
0,
(GLfloat)cameraOffset);
if (trackBallRotation[0] != 0.0f) {
glRotatef (trackBallRotation[0], trackBallRotation[1], trackBallRotation[2], trackBallRotation[3]);
}
// accumlated world rotation via trackball
glRotatef (worldRotation[0], worldRotation[1], worldRotation[2], worldRotation[3]);
glTranslatef(cameraTranslateX, cameraTranslateY, 0.);
In other words, I translate the center of the view to the previous center, rotate around that, and then apply the camera offset to move the camera away to the proper position. This makes the rotation behave exactly the way I want it to, but it introduces a new issue. Now any panning done by the user is relative to the object. For example if the object is rotated so that the camera is looking along the X axis end-on, if the user pans left to right the object appears to be moving closer/further from the user instead of left or right.
I think I can understand why the is (XY camera translations being applied before rotation), and I think what I need to do is figure out a way to cancel out the translation from before the rotation after the rotation (to avoid the weird panning effect) and then to do another translation which translates relative to the viewer (eye coordinate space) instead of the object (object coordinate space) but I'm not sure exactly how to do this.
I found what I think are some clues in the OpenGL FAQ(http://www.opengl.org/resources/faq/technical/transformations.htm), for example:
9.070 How do I transform my objects around a fixed coordinate system rather than the object's local coordinate system?
If you rotate an object around its Y-axis, you'll find that the X- and Z-axes rotate with the object. A subsequent rotation around one of these axes rotates around the newly transformed axis and not the original axis. It's often desirable to perform transformations in a fixed coordinate system rather than the object’s local coordinate system.
The root cause of the problem is that OpenGL matrix operations postmultiply onto the matrix stack, thus causing transformations to occur in object space. To affect screen space transformations, you need to premultiply. OpenGL doesn't provide a mode switch for the order of matrix multiplication, so you need to premultiply by hand. An application might implement this by retrieving the current matrix after each frame. The application multiplies new transformations for the next frame on top of an identity matrix and multiplies the accumulated current transformations (from the last frame) onto those transformations using glMultMatrix().
You need to be aware that retrieving the ModelView matrix once per frame might have a detrimental impact on your application’s performance. However, you need to benchmark this operation, because the performance will vary from one implementation to the next.
And
9.120 How do I find the coordinates of a vertex transformed only by the ModelView matrix?
It's often useful to obtain the eye coordinate space value of a vertex (i.e., the object space vertex transformed by the ModelView matrix). You can obtain this by retrieving the current ModelView matrix and performing simple vector / matrix multiplication.
But I'm not sure how to apply these in my situation.
You need to transform/translate "center of view" point into origin, rotate, then invert that translation, back to the object's transform. This is known as a basis change in linear algebra.
This is way easier to work with if you have a proper 3d-math library (I'm assuming you do have one), and that also helps to to stay far from the deprecated fixed-pipeline APIs. (more on that later).
Here's how I'd do it:
Find the transform for the center of view point in world coordinates (figure it out, then draw it to make sure it's correct, with x,y,z axis too, since the axii are supposed to be correct w.r.t. the view). If you use the center-of-view point and the rotation (usually the inverse of the camera's rotation), this will be a transform from world origin to the view center. Store this in a 4x4 matrix transform.
Apply the inverse of the above transform, so that it becomes the origin. glMultMatrixfv(center_of_view_tf.inverse());
Rotate about this point however you want (glRotate())
Transform everything back to world space (glMultMatrixfv(center_of_view_tf);)
Apply object's own world transform (glTranslate/glRotate or glMultMatrix) and draw it.
About the fixed function pipeline
Back in the old days, there were separate transistors for transforming a vertex (or it's texture coordinates), computing where light was in relation to it applying lights (up to 8) and texturing fragments in many different ways. Simply, glEnable(), enabled fixed blocks of silicon to do some computation in the hardware graphics pipeline. As performance grew, die sized shrunk and people demanded more features, the amount of dedicated silicon grew too, and much of it wasn't used.
Eventually, it got so advanced that you could program it in rather obscene ways (register combiners anyone). And then, it became feasible to actually upload a small assembler program for all vertex-level transforms. Then, it made to sense to keep a lot of silicon there that just did one thing (especially as you could've used those transistors to make the programmable stuff faster), so everything became programmable. If "fixed function" rendering was called for, the driver just converted the state (X lights, texture projections, etc) to shader code and uploaded that as a vertex shader.
So, currently, where even the fragment processing is programmable, there is just a lot of fixed-function options that is used by tons and tons of OpenGL applications, but the silicon on the GPU just runs shaders (and lots of it, in parallell).
...
To make OpenGL more efficient, and the drivers less bulky, and the hardware simpler and useable on mobile/console devices and to take full advantage of the programmable hardware that OpenGL runs on these days, many functions in the API are now marked deprecated. They are not available on OpenGL ES 2.0 and beyond (mobile) and you won't be getting the best performance out of them even on desktop systems (where they will still be in the driver for ages to come, serving equally ancient code bases originating back to the dawn of accelerated 3d graphics)
The fixed-functionness mostly concerns how transforms/lighting/texturing etc. are done by "default" in OpenGL (i.e. glEnable(GL_LIGHTING)), instead of you specifying these ops in your custom shaders.
In the new, programmable, OpenGL, transform matrices are just uniforms in the shader. Any rotate/translate/mult/inverse (like the above) should be done by client code (your code) before being uploaded to OpenGL. (Using only glLoadMatrix is one way to start thinking about it, but instead of using gl_ModelViewProjectionMatrix and the ilk in your shader, use your own uniforms.)
It's a bit of a bother, since you have to implement quite a bit of what was done by the GL driver before, but if you have your own object list/graph with transforms and a transform somewhere etc, it's not that much work. (OTOH, if you have a lot of glTranslate/glRotate in your code, it might be...). As I said, a good 3d-math library is indispensable here.
-..
So, to change the above code to "programmable pipeline" style, you'd just do all these matrix multiplications in your own code (instead of the GL driver doing it, still on the CPU) and then send the resulting matrix to opengl as a uniform before you activate the shaders and draw your object from VBOs.
(Note that modern cards do not have fixed-function code, just a lot of code in the driver to compile fixed-function rendering state to a shader that does the job. No wonder "classic" GL drivers are huge...)
...
Some info about this process is available at Tom's Hardware Guide and probably Google too.
I want to display mesh models in OpenGL ES 2.0, where it clearly shows the actual mesh, so I don't want smooth shading across each primitive/triangle. The only two options I can think about are
Each triangle has its own set of normals, all perpendicular to the triangles surface (but then I guess I can't share vertices among the triangles with this option)
Indicate triangle/primitive edges using black lines and stick to the normal way with shared vertices and one normal for each vertex
Does it have to be like this? Why can't I simply read in primitives and don't specify any normals and somehow let OpenGL ES 2.0 make a flat shade on each face?
Similar question Similar Stackoverflow question, but no suggestion to solution
Because in order to have shading on your mesh (any, smooth or flat), you need a lighting model, and OpenGL ES can't guess it. There is no fixed pipeline in GL ES 2 so you can't use any built-in function that will do the job for you (using a built-in lighting model).
In flat shading, the whole triangle will be drawn with the same color, computed from the angle between its normal and the light source (Yes, you also need a light source, which could simply be the origin of the perspective view). This is why you need at least one normal per triangle.
Then, a GPU works in a very parallelized way, processing several vertices (and then fragments) at the same time. To be efficient, it can't share data among vertices. This is why you need to replicate normals for each vertex.
Also, your mesh can't share vertices among triangles anymore as you said, because they share only the vertex position, not the vertex normal. So you need to put 3 * NbTriangles vertices in you buffer, each one having one position and one normal. You can't either have the benefit of using triangle strips/fans, because none of your faces will have a common vertex with another one (because, again, different normals).
I'm making a basic simulation of moving planets and gravitational pull between them, and displaying the gravity with a big field of green vectors pointing in the direction gravity is pulling them and magnitude of the strength of the pull.
This means I have 400 + lines, which are really rectangles with a rotation, being redrawn each frame, and this is killing my frame-rate. Is there anyway to optimize this with other than making less lines? How do 2d OpenGL games today achieve such high frame-rates even with many complex polygons/colors?
EDIT:
SFML does the actual rendering each frame, but the way I create my lines is by making a rectangle-like sf::Shape. The generation function takes a width, and sets point 1 as (0, width), point 2 as (0, -width), point 3 as (LineLength, -width), and point 4 (LineLength, width). This forms a rectangle which extends along the positive x-axis. Finally I rotate the rectangle around (0,0) to get it to the right orientation, and set the shapes position to be wherever the start of the line is supposed to be.
How do 2d OpenGL games today achieve such high frame-rates even with many complex polygons/colors?
I imagine by not drawing 400+ 4-vertex objects that are each rotated and scaled with a matrix.
If you want to draw a lot of these things, you're going to have to stop relying on SFML's drawing classes. That introduces a lot of overhead. You're going to have to do it the right way: by drawing lines.
If you insist on each line having a separate width, then you can't use GL_LINES. You must instead compute the four positions of the "line" and stick them in a buffer object. Then, you draw them with a single GL_QUADS call. You will need to use proper buffer object streaming techniques to make this work reasonably fast.
Large batches and VBOs. Also double-check how much time you're spending in your simulation update code.
Quick check: If you have a glBegin() anywhere near your main render loop you are probably Doing It Wrong.
Calculate all your vertex positions, then stream them into the GPU via GL_STREAM_DRAW. If you can tolerate some latency use two VBOs and double-buffer.
I vaguely remember seeing something in OpenGL (not ES, which was still at v1.0 on the iPhone when I came across this, which is why I never used it) that let me specify which edges of my polygons were considered outlines vs those that made up the interior of faces. As such, this isn't the same as the outline of the entire model (which I know how to do), but rather the outline of a planar face with all its tris basically blended into one poly. For instance, in a cube made up of tri's, each face is actually two tris. I want to render the outline of the square, but not the diagonal across the face. Same thing with a hexagon. That takes four tris, but just one outline for the face.
Now yes, I know I can simply test all the edges to see if they share coplanar faces, but I could have sworn I remember seeing somewhere when you're defining the tri mesh data where you could say 'this line outlines a face whereas this one is inside a face.' That way when rendering, you could set a flag that basically says 'Give me a wireframe, but only the wires around the edges of complete faces, not around the tris that make them up.'
BTW, my target is all platforms that support OpenGL ES 2.0 but my dev platform is iOS. Again, this Im pretty sure was originally in OpenGL and may have been depreciated once shaders came on the scene, but I can't even find a reference to this feature to check if that's the case.
The only way I know now is to have one set of vertices, but two separate sets of indices... one for rendering tris, and another for rendering the wireframes of the faces. It's a real pain since I end up hand-coding a lot of this, which again, I'm 99% sure you can define when rendering the lines.
GL_QUADS, glEdgeFlag and glPolygonMode are not supported in OpenGL ES.
You could use LINES to draw the wireframe: To get hidden lines, first draw black filled triangles (with DEPTH on) and then draw the edges you are interested in with GL_LINES.
I have created an experimental fast rectangular object tracking system; it will be used for headtracking and controllling objects in 3D engine (Ogre3D).
For now I am able to show to the webcam any kind of bright colored rectangle (text markers are good objects) and system registers basic properties of this object (hue/value/lightness and initial width and height in 0 degrees rotation).
After I have registered the trackable object, I do some simple frame processing to create grayscale probabilty map.
So now I have 2 known things:
1) 4 corners for the last object position (it's always a rectangle but it may be rotated)
2) a pretty rectangular (but still far from perfect) blob which is the brightest in the frame. I can get coordinates of any point of the blob without problems, point detection is stable enough.
I can find a bounding rectangle of the object without problems, but I have a problem with detecting the object corners themselves.
I need the simplest possible (quick&dirty would be great) algorithm to scan the image starting with some known coordinates (a point inside the blob) and detect new 4 x,y coordinates of a "blobish" rectangle corners (not corners of a bounding box but corners of the rectangular blob itself).
Ready-to-use C++ function would be awesome, but somehow google doesn't like me today :(
I think that it would be overkill to use some complicated function form OpenCV library just to extract 4 points of a single rectanglular blob. But if you know a quick and efficient way how to do it using OpenCV (it must be real-time and light on CPU because I'll run the 3D engine at the same time) then I would be really grateful.
You can apply Hough transform on segmented image to detect lines. Using detected lines you can calculate their intersection to find the corner coordinates of the blob.