I want to draw a very large amount of triangles (up to 600000).
What I did first was to:
al_init();
display = al_create_display();
and then loop through my triangles and
al_draw_triangle(); each one.
Finally I did
al_flip_display();
This was not very fast though. I read that it helps to draw to a bitmap on hold first and then draw that bitmap to the display.
I tried to do this in the following fashion (sketched):
al_init();
display = al_create_display();
bitmap = al_create_bitmap();
al_set_target_bitmap(bitmap);
al_hold_bitmap_drawing(1);
for every triangle:
al_draw_triangle();
al_hold_bitmap_drawing(0);
al_set_target_bitmap(al_get_backbuffer(display));
al_draw_bitmap(bitmap, 0, 0, 0);
al_flip_display();
This is just as fast as the previous method though.
How can I correctly buffer my triangles to reduce the amount of draws?
What is the most efficient way to draw many primitives in Allegro 5?
Thanks for all answers
al_hold_bitmap_drawing does nothing for primitives. This thread has some discussion on the topic, including a suggestion to buffer all of your primitives and make one call to al_draw_prim:
The difference is that I only call al_draw_prim once, after buffering possibly hundreds of primitives. The primitive drawing functions will kick off a batch every time.
Related
I am writing a GUI that is supposed to display entities of a system in a 2D coordinate system, which the user can select and drag around. The system is mirror-symmetric w.r.t. the x and y axes. Currently I am subclassing an entity using a QGraphicsRectItem so that I can drag it around in the first quadrant (x>0, y>0) of the coordinate system. I reimplemented the paint method to draw the other three additional rectangles with painter.drawRectangle(). So when I move the entity in quadrant 1, the elements in the other three quadrants perform mirror motions. That works well.
In the next stage, each entity can be subdivided, i.e. consist of hundreds of rectangles. So I need to draw hundreds of rectangles and that four times, with mirror operations. The naive approach takes four for-loops, but I'm wondering if there is a smarter way of doing this in QT. The for-loops hurt a little because I'm using PyQt.
If your drawing operations are so slow the simplest thing you could do is draw to an image, and then simply draw the cached painting from the image 4 times, which will be very fast, since it will just be copying some pixel values.
It might be efficient to cache the drawing result not on item basis but to cache a quadrant of your grid. This way if you zoom in and the items get huge or numerous in count, you won't be wasting lots of memory, instead you will only need one image cache that's the screen size of the quadrant.
It really depends what you want to achieve, which at this point is not entirely clear from the description, and your image isn't showing neither.
I wanted to know whether OpenGL VBOs are meant to be used only for large geometry arrays, or whether it makes sense to use them even for small arrays. I have code that positions a variety of geometry relative to other geometry, but some of the "leaf" geometry objects are quite small, 10x10 quad spheres and the like (200 triangles apiece). I may have a very large number of these small leaf objects. I want to be able to have a different transform matrix for each of these small leaf objects. It seems I have 2 options:
Use a separate VBO for each leaf object. I may end up with a large number of VBOs.
I could store data for multiple objects in one VBO, and apply the appropriate transforms myself when changing the data for a given leaf object. This seems strange because part of the point of OpenGL is to efficiently do large numbers of matrix ops in hardware. I would be doing in software something OpenGL is designed to do very well in hardware.
Is having a large number of VBOs inefficient, or should I just go ahead and choose option 1? Are there any better ways to deal with the situation of having lots of small objects? Should I instead be using vertex arrays or anything like that?
The most optimal solution if your data is static and consists of one object would be to use display lists and one VBO for only one mesh. Otherwise the general rule is that you want to avoid doing anything other than rendering in the main draw loop.
If you'll never need to add or remove an object after initialization (or morph any object) then it's probably more efficient to bind a single buffer permanently and change the stride/offset values to render different objects.
If you've only got a base set of geometry that will remain static, use a single VBO for that and separate VBOs for the geometry that can be added/removed/morphed.
If you can drop objects in or remove objects at will, each object should have it's own VBO to make memory management much simpler.
some good info is located at: http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Vertex_Specification_Best_Practices
I think that 200 triangles per one mesh is not so small number and maybe the performance with VBO for each of that meshes will not decrease so much. Unfortunately it is depended on hardware spec.
One huge buffer will no gain huge performance difference... I think that the best option would be to store several (but not all) objects per one VBO.
renderin using one buffer:
there is no problem with that... you simply have one buffer that is bound and then you can use glDrawArrays with different parameters. For instance if one mesh consists of 100 verts, and in th buffer you have 10 of those meshes you can use
glDrawArrays(triangles, 0, 100);
glDrawArrays(triangles, 100, 100);
glDrawArrays(triangles, ..., 100);
glDrawArrays(triangles, 900, 100);
in that way you minimize changing buffers and still you are able to render it quite efficient.
Are those "small" objects the same? do they have the same geometry but different transformations/materials? Because maybe it is worth using "instancing"?
I am trying to display as many textured quads as possible at random positions in the 3D space. In my experience so far, I cannot display even a couple of thousands of them without dropping the fps significantly under 30 (my camera movement script becomes laggy).
Right now I am following an ancient tutorial. After initializing OpenGL:
glEnable(GL_TEXTURE_2D);
glShadeModel(GL_SMOOTH);
glClearColor(0, 0, 0, 0);
glClearDepth(1.0f);
glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST);
glDepthFunc(GL_LEQUAL);
glHint(GL_PERSPECTIVE_CORRECTION_HINT, GL_NICEST);
I set the viewpoint and perspective:
glViewport(0,0,width,height);
glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION);
glLoadIdentity();
gluPerspective(60.0f,(GLfloat)width/(GLfloat)height,0.1f,100.0f);
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glLoadIdentity();
Then I load some textures:
glGenTextures(TEXTURE_COUNT, &texture[0]);
for (int i...){
glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[i]);
glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D,GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER,GL_LINEAR);
glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D,GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER,GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_NEAREST);
gluBuild2DMipmaps(GL_TEXTURE_2D,3,TextureImage[0]->w,TextureImage[0]->h,GL_RGB,GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE,TextureImage[0]->pixels);
}
And finally I draw my GL_QUADS using:
glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, q);
glTranslatef(fDistanceX,fDistanceZ,-fDistanceY);
glBegin(GL_QUADS);
glNormal3f(a,b,c);
glTexCoord2f(d, e); glVertex3f(x1, y1, z1);
glTexCoord2f(f, g); glVertex3f(x2, y2, z2);
glTexCoord2f(h, k); glVertex3f(x3, y3, z3);
glTexCoord2f(m, n); glVertex3f(x4, y4, z4);
glEnd();
glTranslatef(-fDistanceX,-fDistanceZ,fDistanceY);
I find all that code very self explaining. Unfortunately that way to do things is deprecated, as far as I know. I read some vague things about PBO and vertexArrays on the internet, but i did not find any tutorial on how to use them. I don't even know if these objects are suited to realize what I am trying to do here (a billion quads on the screen without a lag). Perhaps anyone here could give me a definitive suggestion, of what I should use to achieve the result? And if you happen to have one more minute of spare time, could you give me a short summary of how these functions are used (just as i did with the deprecated ones above)?
Perhaps anyone here could give me a definitive suggestion, of what I should use to achieve the result?
What is "the result"? You have not explained very well what exactly it is that you're trying to accomplish. All you've said is that you're trying to draw a lot of textured quads. What are you trying to do with those textured quads?
For example, you seem to be creating the same texture, with the same width and height, given the same pixel data. But you store these in different texture objects. OpenGL does not know that they contain the same data. Therefore, you spend a lot of time swapping textures needlessly when you render quads.
If you're just randomly drawing them to test performance, then the question is meaningless. Such tests are pointless, because they are entirely artificial. They test only this artificial scenario where you're changing textures every time you render a quad.
Without knowing what you are trying to ultimately render, the only thing I can do is give general performance advice. In order (ie: do the first before you do the later ones):
Stop changing textures for every quad. You can package multiple images together in the same texture, then render all of the quads that use that texture at once, with only one glBindTexture call. The texture coordinates of the quad specifies which image within the texture that it uses.
Stop using glTranslate to position each individual quad. You can use it to position groups of quads, but you should do the math yourself to compute the quad's vertex positions. Once those glTranslate calls are gone, you can put multiple quads within the space of a single glBegin/glEnd pair.
Assuming that your quads are static (fixed position in model space), consider using a buffer object to store and render with your quad data.
I read some vague things about PBO and vertexArrays on the internet, but i did not find any tutorial on how to use them.
Did you try the OpenGL Wiki, which has a pretty good list of tutorials (as well as general information on OpenGL)? In the interest of full disclosure, I did write one of them.
I heard, in modern games milliards of polygons are rendered in real time
Actually its in the millions. I presume you're German: "Milliarde" translates into "Billion" in English.
Right now I am following an ancient tutorial.
This is your main problem. Contemporary OpenGL applications don't use ancient rendering methods. You're using the immediate mode, which means that you're going through several function calls to just submit a single vertex. This is highly inefficient. Modern applications, like games, can reach that high triangle counts because they don't waste their CPU time on calling as many functions, they don't waste CPU→GPU bandwidth with the data stream.
To reach that high counts of triangles being rendered in realtime you must place all the geometry data in the "fast memory", i.e. in the RAM on the graphics card. The technique OpenGL offers for this is called "Vertex Buffer Objects". Using a VBO you can draw large batches of geometry using a single drawing call (glDrawArrays, glDrawElements and their relatives).
After getting the geometry out of the way, you must be nice to the GPU. GPUs don't like it, if you switch textures or shaders often. Switching a texture invalidates the contents of the cache(s), switching a shader means stalling the GPU pipeline, but worse it means invalidating the execution path prediction statistics (the GPU takes statistics which execution paths of a shader are the most probable to be executed and which memory access patterns it exhibits, this used to iteratively optimize the shader execution).
I'm trying to create a platformer game, and I am taking various sprite blocks, and piecing them together in order to draw the level. This requires drawing a large number of sprites on the screen every single frame. A good computer has no problem handling drawing all the sprites, but it starts to impact performance on older computers. Since this is NOT a big game, I want it to be able to run on almost any computer. Right now, I am using the following DirectX function to draw my sprites:
D3DXVECTOR3 center(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
D3DXVECTOR3 position(static_cast<float>(x), static_cast<float>(y), z);
(my LPD3DXSPRITE object)->Draw((sprite texture pointer), NULL, ¢er, &position, D3DCOLOR_ARGB(a, r, g, b));
Is there a more efficient way to draw these pictures on the screen? Is there a way that I can use less complex picture files (I'm using regular png's right now) to speed things up?
To sum it up: What is the most performance friendly way to draw sprites in DirectX? thanks!
The ID3DXSPRITE interface you are using is already pretty efficient. Make sure all your sprite draw calls happen in one batch if possible between the sprite begin and end calls. This allows the sprite interface to arrange the draws in the most efficient way.
For extra performance you can load multiple smaller textures in to one larger texture and use texture coordinates to get them out. This makes it so textures don't have to be swapped as frequently. See:
http://nexe.gamedev.net/directknowledge/default.asp?p=ID3DXSprite
The file type you are using for the textures does not matter as long as they are are preloaded into textures. Make sure you load them all in to textures once when the game/level is loading. Once you have loaded them in to textures it does not matter what format they were originally in.
If you still are not getting the performance you want, try using PIX to profile your application and find where the bottlenecks really are.
Edit:
This is too long to fit in a comment, so I will edit this post.
When I say swapping textures I mean binding them to a texture stage with SetTexture. Each time SetTexture is called there is a small performance hit as it changes the state of the texture stage. Normally this delay is fairly small, but can be bad if DirectX has to pull the texture from system memory to video memory.
ID3DXsprite will reorder the draws that are between begin and end calls for you. This means SetTexture will typically only be called once for each texture regardless of the order you draw them in.
It is often worth loading small textures into a large one. For example if it were possible to fit all small textures in to one large one, then the texture stage could just stay bound to that texture for all draws. Normally this will give a noticeable improvement, but testing is the only way to know for sure how much it will help. It would look terrible, but you could just throw in any large texture and pretend it is the combined one to test what performance difference there would be.
I agree with dschaeffer, but would like to add that if you are using a large number different textures, it may better to smush them together on a single (or few) larger textures and adjust the texture coordinates for different sprites accordingly. Texturing state changes cost a lot and this may speed things up on older systems.
In my application I draw a lot of cubes through OpenGL ES Api. All the cubes are of same dimensions, only they are located at different coordinates in space. I can think of two ways of drawing them, but I am not sure which is the most efficient one. I am no OpenGL expert, so I decided to ask here.
Method 1, which is what I use now: Since all the cubes are of identical dimensions, I calculate vertex buffer, index buffer, normal buffer and color buffer only once. During a refresh of the scene, I go over all cubes, do bufferData() for same set of buffers and then draw the triangle mesh of the cube using drawElements() call. Since each cube is at different position, I translate the mvMatrix before I draw. bufferData() and drawElements() is executed for each cube. In this method, I probably save a lot of memory, by not calculating the buffers every time. But I am making lot of drawElements() calls.
Method 2 would be: Treat all cubes as set of polygons spread all over the scene. Calculate vertex, index, color, normal buffers for each polygon (actually triangles within the polygons) and push them to graphics card memory in single call to bufferData(). Then draw them with single call to drawElements(). The advantage of this approach is, I do only one bindBuffer and drawElements call. The downside is, I use lot of memory to create the buffers.
My experience with OpenGL is limited enough, to not know which one of the above methods is better from performance point of view.
I am using this in a WebGL app, but it's a generic OpenGL ES question.
I implemented method 2 and it wins by a landslide. The supposed downside of high amount of memory seemed to be only my imagination. In fact the garbage collector got invoked in method 2 only once, while it was invoked for 4-5 times in method 1.
Your OpenGL scenario might be different from mine, but if you reached here in search of performance tips, the lesson from this question is: Identify the parts in your scene that don't change frequently. No matter how big they are, put them in single buffer set (VBOs) and upload to graphics memory minimum number of times. That's how VBOs are meant to be used. The memory bandwidth between client (i.e. your app) and graphics card is precious and you don't want to consume it often without reason.
Read the section "Vertex Buffer Objects" in Ch. 6 of "OpenGL ES 2.0 Programming Guide" to understand how they are supposed to be used. http://opengles-book.com/
I know that this question is already answered, but I think it's worth pointing out the Google IO presentation about WebGL optimization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfQ8rKGTVlg
They cover, essentially, this exact same issue (lot's of identical shapes with different colors/positions) and talk about some great ways to optimize such a scene (and theirs is dynamic too!)
I propose following approach:
On load:
Generate coordinates buffer (for one cube) and load it into VBO (gl.glGenBuffers, gl.glBindBuffer)
On draw:
Bind buffer (gl.glBindBuffer)
Draw each cell (loop)
2.1. Move current position to center of current cube (gl.glTranslatef(position.x, position.y, position.z)
2.2. Draw current cube (gl.glDrawArrays)
2.3. Move position back (gl.glTranslatef(-position.x, -position.y, -position.z))