i want to ask a question about the effect of object size object performance. I have made 10 cubes of 100units size and 10 cubes of 1 unit size. Will my fps be lower in the first case.
If you are going to be making a map try to make the shapes as simple as possible, what I mean is if you have a room, don't put 6 cubes that all connect to form a room, just use a plane and connect it, or make the inside of your cube transparent. This comes very useful if you are building large maps, if you are making something simple, than this won't really make a difference. But I recommend getting in the practice of making everything as simple as possible, so you already have practice when you make a bigger game.
It all depends on the camera's field of vision actually. The more items visible at a time will demand more from the system. Also, Sizes won't be that much of a trouble in orthographic but in the perspective mode, it will surely hit the system's demand.
Related
I'm currently working on a game using Three.js. I've been studying software engineering for four years and have been working professionally on backends for two, but I've barely touched on graphics aside from some simple Unity experimenting.
I currently have ~22,000 vertices and ~8,000 faces according to renderstats.js, and my desktop (above average) can't run it above 20 FPS. I'm using Lambert material as well as a single ambient light, so I feel like this isn't too much to ask.
With these figures in mind, is this the expected behavior for three.js rendering?
I would be pretty sure that is not end of the line and you are probably missing some possibilities for massive performance-improvements.
But just to give you some numbers first,
if you leave everything fancy away (including three.js) and just render an ultra-simple point-cloud with one fragment rendered per point, you can easily get to rendering 10-20 million (yes, million) points/vertices on an average GPU.
just with simple shapes and material, I already got three.js to render something in the range of 500k triangles (at 1080p-resolution) at 60FPS without problem. You can probably take those numbers times 10 for latest high-end GPUs.
However, these kinds of numbers are not really helpful.
Some hints:
if you want to debug your rendering-performance, you should first add some metrics. Renderstats is good, but I'd recommend integrating http://spite.github.io/rstats/ for this (see the example).
generally the choice of material shouldn't matter too much, the GPU is way more capable than most people think. It's more likely a problem somewhere else in the pipeline. EDIT from comment: In some cases, like hi-resolution displays with slow GPUs (think mobile-devices) this might be less true and complicated shader-code can slow down your site, but it might worth be looking at the other points first. As the rendering itself happens off-thread (so you can't measure it's duration using regular tools like the devtools-profiler), you can use the EXT_disjoint_timer_query-extension to get some information about what is going on on the GPU.
the number of drawcalls shouldn't be too high: three.js needs to do a single drawcall for every Mesh and Points-object rendered in the scene and too many objects are generally a far bigger problem than objects with lots of vertices. Reducing the number of drawcalls can be done by merging multiple geometries into one and making use of multi-materials, vertex-colors and things like that.
if you are doing postprocessing, the GPU needs to render every pixel on screen several times. This might as well massively limit your performance. This can be optimized by merging multiple postprocessing-passes into one (I admit, that'd be a lot of hard work..)
another problem could be on the JS side: you should use the profiler or timeline-view from the chrome devtools to see if maybe it's the javascript that is taking too much time per frame (shouldn't be more than 8-12ms per frame). I've been told there are ways to optimize the javascript-performance as well :)
I think this requires a bit of background information:
I have been modding Minecraft for a while now, but I alway wanted to make my own game, so I started digging into the freshly released LWJGL3 to actually get things done. Yes, I know it's a bit ow level and I should use an engine and stuff...indeed, I already tried some engines and they never quite match what I want to do, so I decided I want to tackle the problem at its root.
So far, I kind of understand how to render meshes, move the "camera", etc. and I'm willing to take the learning curve.
But the thing is, at some point all the tutorials start to explain how to load models and create skeletal animations and so on...but I think I do not really want to go that way. A lot of things in working with Minecraft code was awful, but I liked how I could create models and animations from Java code. Sure, it did not look super realistic, but since I'm not great with Blender either, I doubt having "classic" models and animations would help. Anyway, in that code, I could rotate a box around to make a creature look at a player, I could use a sinus function to move legs and arms (or wings, in my case) and that was working, since Minecraft used immediate mode and Java could directly tell the graphics card where to draw each vertex.
So, actual question(s): Is there any good way to make dynamic animations in modern (3.3+) OpenGL? My models would basically be a hierarchy of shapes (boxes or whatever) and I want to be able to rotate them on the fly. But I'm not sure how to organize that. Would I store all the translation/rotation-matrices for each sub-shape? Would that put a hard limit on the amount of sub-shapes a model could have? Did anyone try something like that?
Edit: For clarification, what I did looked something like this:
Create a model: https://github.com/TheOnlySilverClaw/Birdmod/blob/master/src/main/java/silverclaw/birds/client/model/ModelOstrich.java
The model is created as a bunch of boxes in the constructor, the render and setRotationAngles methods set scale and rotations.
You should follow one opengl tutorial in order to understand the basics.
Let me suggest "Learning Modern 3D Graphics Programming", and especially this chapter, where you move one robot arm with multiple joints.
I did a port in java using jogl here, but you can easily port it over lwjgl.
What you are looking for is exactly skeletal animation, the only difference being the fact you do not want to load animations for your bones but want to compute / generate transforms on the fly.
You basically have a hierarchy of bones, and geometry attached to it. It looks like you want to manipulate this geometry "rigidly", so before sending your meshes / transforms to the GPU (the classic way), you want to start by computing the new transforms in model or world space, then send those freshly computed matrices to draw your geometries on the gpu the standard way.
As Sorin said, to compute each transform you simply have to iterate over your hierarchy and accumulate transforms given the transform of the parent bone and your local transform w.r.t the parent.
Yes and no.
You can have your hierarchy of shapes and store a relative transform for each.
For example the "player" whould have a translation to 100,100, 10 (where the player is), and then the "head" subcomponent would have an additional translation of 0,0,5 (just a bit higher on the z axis).
You can store these as matrices (they can encode translation, roation and scaling) and use glPushMatrix and glPop matrix to add and remove a matrix to a stack maintained by openGL.
The draw() function(or whatever you call it) should look something like :
glPushMatrix();
glMultMatrix(my_transform); // You can also just have glTranslate, glRotate or anything else.
// Draw my mesh
for (child : children) { child.draw(); }
glPopMatrix();
This gives you a hierarchical setup so that objects move with their parent. Alternatively you can have a stack in the main memory and do the multiplications yourself (use a library). I think the openGL stack may have a limit (implementation dependent), but if you handle it yourself the only limit is the amount of ram you can use. Once all the matrices are multiplied rendering is done in the same amount of time, that is it doesn't matter for performance how deep a mesh is in the hierarchy.
For actual animations you need to compute the intermediate transformations. For example for a crouch animation you probably want to have a few frames in between so that the camera doesn't just jump to the low position. You can do this with a time based linear interpolation between the start and end positions, but this only covers simple animations and you still have to implement it yourself.
Anything more complicated (i.e. modify the mesh based on the bone links) you would need to implement yourself.
As an exercise, I decided to write a SimCity (original) clone in Swift for OSX. I started the project using SpriteKit, originally having each tile as an instance of SKSpriteNode and swapping the texture of each node when that tile changed. This caused terrible performance, so I switched the drawing over to regular Cocoa windows, implementing drawRect to draw NSImages at the correct tile position. This solution worked well until I needed to implement animated tiles which refresh very quickly.
From here, I went back to the first approach, this time using a texture atlas to reduce the amount of draws needed, however, swapping textures of nodes that need to be animated was still very slow and had a huge detrimental effect on frame rate.
I'm attempting to display a 44x44 tile map where each tile is 16x16 pixels. I know here must be an efficient (or perhaps more correct way) to do this. This leads to my question:
Is there an efficient way to support 1500+ nodes in SpriteKit and which are animated through changing their textures? More importantly, am I taking the wrong approach by using SpriteKit and SKSpriteNode for each tile in the map (even if I only redraw the dirty ones)? Would another approach (perhaps, OpenGL?) be better?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'd be happy to provide code samples, but I'm not sure how relevant/helpful they would be for this question.
Edit
Here are some links to relevant drawing code and images to demonstrate the issue:
Screenshot:
When the player clicks on the small map, the center position of the large map changes. An event is fired from the small map the central engine powering the game which is then forwarded to listeners. The code that gets executed on the large map the change all of the textures can be found here:
https://github.com/chrisbenincasa/Swiftopolis/blob/drawing-performance/Swiftopolis/GameScene.swift#L489
That code uses tileImages which is a wrapper around a Texture Atlas that is generated at runtime.
https://github.com/chrisbenincasa/Swiftopolis/blob/drawing-performance/Swiftopolis/TileImages.swift
Please excuse the messiness of the code -- I made an alternate branch for this investigation and haven't cleaned up a lot of residual code that has been hanging around from pervious iterations.
I don't know if this will "answer" your question, but may help.
SpriteKit will likely be able to handle what you need but you need to look at different optimizations for SpriteKit and more so your game logic.
SpriteKit. Creating a .atlas is by far one of the best things you can do and will help keep your draw calls down. Also as I learned the hard way keep a pointer to your SKTextures as long as you need them and only generate the ones you needs. For instance don't create textureWithImageNamed#"myImage" every time you need a texture for myImage instead keep reusing a texture and store it in a dictionary. Also skView.ignoresSiblingOrder = YES; helps a bunch but you have to manage your own zPosition on all the sprites.
Game logic. Updating every tile every loop is going to be very expensive. You will want to look at a better way to do that. keeping smaller arrays or maybe doing logic (model) updates on a background thread.
I currently have a project you can look into if you want called Old Frank. I have a map that is 75 x 75 with 32px by 32px tiles that may be stacked 2 tall. I have both Mac and iOS target so you could in theory blow up the scene size and see how the performance holds up. Not saying there isn't optimization work to be done (it is a work in progress), but I feel it might help get you pointed in the right direction at least.
Hope that helps.
I want to implement the "depth peeling" in webgl but the problem is that there is no occlusion query so I don't know how to check when the "peeling" of the scene is over.
Do you see an other way to do that?
The usual approach is to limit the peeling to a certain amount of steps. This is sometimes even better than using occlusion queries because to many layers of transparent structure become close to impossible to discern from each other. It often helps to know what you are exactly rendering to get a good estimate of the amount of layers you need to peel.
I recently implemented depth peeling in webgl. There are a few limiting factors that make it kinda hard to do as many peels as layers. Mainly a very limited amount of texture units and the fact you can only render to one target at a time, so you have to render color and depth seperately. With 7 textures used I can do 4 peels. That already takes 11 render passes per frame. To do more peels you would need to do a bit more sophisticated merging of intermediate results. I doubt you gain much from more peels.
This is a difficult question to search in Google since it has other meaning in finance.
Of course, what I mean here is "Drawing" as in .. computer graphics.. not money..
I am interested in preventing overdrawing for both 3D Drawing and 2D Drawing.
(should I make them into two different questions?)
I realize that this might be a very broad question since I didn't specify which technology to use. If it is too broad, maybe some hints on some resources I can read up will be okay.
EDIT:
What I mean by overdrawing is:
when you draw too many objects, rendering single frame will be very slow
when you draw more area than what you need, rendering a single frame will be very slow
It's quite complex topic.
First thing to consider is frustum culling. It will filter out objects that are not in camera’s field of view so you can just pass them on render stage.
The second thing is Z-sorting of objects that are in camera. It is better to render them from front to back so that near objects will write “near-value” to the depth buffer and far objects’ pixels will not be drawn since they will not pass depth test. This will save your GPU’s fill rate and pixel-shader work. Note however, if you have semitransparent objects in scene, they should be drawn first in back-to-front order to make alpha-blending possible.
Both things achievable if you use some kind of space partition such as Octree or Quadtree. Which is better depends on your game. Quadtree is better for big open spaces and Octree is better for in-door spaces with many levels.
And don't forget about simple back-face culling that can be enabled with single line in DirectX and OpenGL to prevent drawing of faces that are look at camera with theirs back-side.
Question is really too broad :o) Check out these "pointers" and ask more specifically.
Typical overdraw inhibitors are:
Z-buffer
Occlusion based techniques (various buffer techniques, HW occlusions, ...)
Stencil test
on little bit higher logic level:
culling (usually by view frustum)
scene organization techniques (usually trees or tiling)
rough drawing front to back (this is obviously supporting technique :o)
EDIT: added stencil test, has indeed interesting overdraw prevention uses especially in combination of 2d/3d.
Reduce the number of objects you consider for drawing based on distance, and on position (ie. reject those outside of the viewing frustrum).
Also consider using some sort of object-based occlusion system to allow large objects to obscure small ones. However this may not be worth it unless you have a lot of large objects with fairly regular shapes. You can pre-process potentially visible sets for static objects in some cases.
Your API will typically reject polygons that are not facing the viewpoint also, since you typically don't want to draw the rear-face.
When it comes to actual rendering time, it's often helpful to render opaque objects from front-to-back, so that the depth-buffer tests end up rejecting entire polygons. This works for 2D too, if you have depth-buffering turned on.
Remember that this is a performance optimisation problem. Most applications will not have a significant problem with overdraw. Use tools like Pix or NVIDIA PerfHUD to measure your problem before you spend resources on fixing it.