I would like to inquire some insights into rendering a large amount of meshes with the best performance.
I'm working on generative mine-able planets incorporating marching cube chunked terrain. Currently I'm trying to add vegetation/rocks to spruce up the planet surfaces (get it?). I am using the actual chunk loading to (next to the terrain) also load smaller rocks and some grass stuff. That runs pretty well. I am having issues with tree's and boulders (visible on the entire planet surface but LODed, obviously).
Testing different methods have lead me on the road of;
Custom shaders with material clipping based on camera distance; Works okay for about half a million trees made from 2 perpendicular planes (merged into one single bufferGeometry). But those 'models' are not good enough.
THREE.LOD's; Which sucks up fps like crazy, to slow for large amounts of meshes.
THREE.InstancedMesh's; Works pretty well, however I'd have to disable frustumCulling, since the originpoint of the vegetation is not always on screen. Which makes it inefficient.
THREE.InstancedGeometry combined with the custom clipping shaders; I had high hopes for this, it gives the best performance while using actual models. But it still eats up half of the frameRate. The vertexshader still has to process all the vertices to determine if it is within clipping range. Also the same frustumCulling issue applies.
Material.clippingPlanes? Combined with InstancedMeshes; This is what I'm trying now, did not have any luck with it, still trying to figure out exactly how that works..
Does anyone have experience with rendering large amounts of meshes or has some advice for me? Is there a technique I do not yet know about?
Would it help to split up the trees in multiple InstancedMeshes? Would the clippingPlanes give me better performance?
Related
Is there a way to do imposters in three.js - or is that not going to help with performance at all for a scene with >10,000 objects most of them being the same model?
If you have thousands of the same object (with variations of position/size/rotation and perhaps color) then your first priority should be to make sure you don't have thousands of GPU draw call. A couple options:
(a) static batching — apply the objects' positions to their geometries (geometry.applyMatrix( mesh.matrixWorld )) then merge them with THREE.BufferGeometryUtils.mergeBufferGeometries()). The result can be drawn as a single large mesh. This takes up more memory, but is easier to set up.
(b) gpu instancing — more memory-efficient, but harder to do. See https://threejs.org/examples/webgl_interactive_instances_gpu.html or https://www.npmjs.com/package/three-instanced-mesh.
Once you've reduced the number of draw calls, profile the application again. If performance is still poor, you can reduce the total vertex count with impostors (or, really, just simpler meshes...). threejs does not generate impostors for you, per Spherical Impostors in three.js.
I have a sphere with texture of earth that I generate on the fly with the canvas element from an SVG file and manipulate it.
The texture size is 16384x8192 , and less than this - it's look blurry on close zoom.
But this is a huge texture size and causing memory problems... (But it's look very good when it is working)
I think a better approach would be to split the sphere into 32 separated textures, each in size of 2048x2048
A few questions:
How can I split the sphere and assign the right textures?
Is this approach better in terms of memory and performance from a single huge texture?
Is there a better solution?
Thanks
You could subdivide a cube, and cubemap this.
Instead of having one texture per face, you would have NxN textures. 32 doesn't sound like a good number, but 24 for example does, (6x2x2).
You will still use the same amount of memory. If the shape actually needs to be spherical you can further subdivide the segments and normalize the entire shape (spherify it).
You probably cant even use such a big texture anyway.
notice the top sphere (cubemap, ignore isocube):
Typically, that's not something you'd do programmatically, but in a 3D program like Blender or 3D max. It involves some trivial mesh separation, UV mapping and material assignment. One other approach that's worth experimenting with would be to have multiple materials but only one mesh - you'd still get (somewhat) progressive loading. BUT
Are you sure you'd be better off with "chunks" loading sequentially rather than one big texture taking a huge amount of time? Sure, it'll improve a bit in terms of timeouts and caching, but the tradeoff is having big chunks of your mesh be textureless, which is noticeable and unasthetic.
There are a few approaches that would mitigate your problem. First, it's important to understand that texture loading optimization techniques - while common in game engines - aren't really part of threejs or what it's built for. You'll never get the near-seamless LODs or GPU optimization techniques that you'll get with UE4 or Unity. Furthermore webGL - while having made many strides over the past decade - is not ideal for handling vast texture sizes, not at the GPU level (since it's based on OpenGL ES, suited primarily for mobile devices) and certainly not at the caching level - we're still dealing with broswers here. You won't find a lot of webGL work done with vast textures of the dimensions you refer to.
Having said that,
A. A loader will let you do other things while your textures are loading so your user isn't staring at an 'unfinished mesh'. It lets you be pretty clever with dynamic loading times and UX design. Additionally, take a look at this gist to give you an idea for what a progressive texture loader could look like. A much more involved technique, that's JPEG specific, can be found here but I wouldn't approach it unless you're comfortable with low-level graphics programming.
B. Threejs does have a basic implementation of LOD although I haven't tinkered with it myself and am not sure it's useful for textures; that said, the basic premise to inquire into is whether you can load progressively higher-resolution files on a per-need basis, just like Google Earth does it for example.
C. This is out of the scope of your question - but I'd look into what happens under the hood in Unity's webgl export (which is based on threejs), and what kind of clever tricks are being employed there for similar purposes.
Finally, does your project have to be in webgl? For something ambitious and demanding, sometimes "proper" openGL / DX makes much more sense.
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 :)
Three.JS noob here trying to do 2d visualization.
I used d3.js to make an interactive visualization involving thousands of nodes (rectangle shaped). Needless to say there were performance issues during animation because Browsers have to create an svg DOM element for every one of those 10 thousand nodes.
I wish to recreate the same visualization using WebGl in order to leverage hardware acceleration.
Now ThreeJS is a library which I have choosen because of its popularity (btw, I did look at PixiJS and its api didn't appeal to me). I am wanting to know what is the best approach to do 2d graphics in three.js.
I tried creating one PlaneGeometry for every rectangle. But it seems that 10 thousand Plane geometries are not the say to go (animation becomes super duper slow).
I am probably missing something. I just need to know what is the best primitive way to create 2d rectangles and still identify them uniquely so that I can interact with them once drawn.
Thanks for any help.
EDIT: Would you guys suggest to use another library by any chance?
I think you're on the right track with looking at WebGL, but depending on what you're doing in your visualization you might need to get closer to the metal than "out of the box" threejs.
I recommend taking a look at GLSL and taking a look at how you can implement your visualization using vertex and fragment shaders. You can still use threejs for a lot of the WebGL plumbing.
The reason you'll probably need to get directly into GLSL shader work is because you want to take most of the poly manipulation logic out of javascript, at least as much as is possible. Any time you ask js to do a tight loop over tens of thousands of polys to update position, etc... you are going to struggle with CPU usage.
It is going to be much more performant to have js pass in data parameters to your shaders and let the vertex manipulation happen there.
Take a look here: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webgl/shaders/ for a nice shader tutorial.
I'm implementing a simple lightning effect for my 3D game, something like this:
http://www.krazydad.com/bestiary/bestiary_lightning.html
I'm using opengl ES 2.0. I'm pondering what the best looking and most performance efficient way to render this in a 3D environment is though, as the lines making up the electric bolt needs to be looking "solid" when viewed from any angle.
I was thinking to generate two planes for each line segment, in an X cross to create an effect of line thickness. Rendering by disabling depth buffer writes, using some kind off additive blending mode. Texturing each line segment using an electric looking texture with an alpha channel.
I'm a bit worried about the performance hit from generating the necessary triangle lists using this method though, as my game will potentially have a lot of lightning bolts generated at the same time. But as the length and thickness of the lightning bolts will vary a lot, I doubt it would look good to simply use an animated 3D object of an lightning bolt, stretched and pointing to the right location, which was my initial idea.
I was thinking of an alternative approach where I render the lightning bolts using 2D lines between projected end points in a post processing pass. That should work well since the perspective effect in my case is negligible, except then it would be tricky to have the lines appear behind occluding objects.
Any good ideas on the best approach here?
Edit: I found this white paper from nVidia:
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10/direct3d/Source/Lightning/doc/lightning_doc.pdf
Which uses an approach with having billboards for each line segment, then apply some filtering to smooth the resulting gaps and overlaps from each billboard.
Seems to yield pretty good visual results, however I am not too happy about the additional filtering pass as the game is for mobile phones where such a step is quite costly. And, as it turns out, billboarding is quite CPU expensive too, due to the additional matrix calculation overhead, which is slow on mobile devices.
I ended up doing something like the nVidia paper suggested, but to prevent the need for a postprocessing step I used different kind of textures for different kind of branching angles, to avoid gaps and overlaps of the segment corners, which turned out quite well. And to avoid the expensive billboard matrix calculation I instead drew the line segments using a more 2D approach, but calculating the depth value manually for each vertex in the segments. This yields both acceptable performance and visuals.
An animated texture, possibly powered by a shader, is likely the fastest way to handle this.
Any geometry generation and rendering will limit the quality of the effect, and may take significantly more CPU time, memory bandwidth and draw calls.
Using a single animated texture on a quad, or a shader creating procedural lightning, will give constant speed and make the effect much simpler to implement. For that, this question may be of interest.