I am trying to understand the whole 2D accelerated rendering process using SDL 2.0.
So my question is which would be the most efficient way to draw circles in the screen and why?
Some ways would be:
First to create a software surface and then draw the necessary pixels on that surface then create a texture out of that surface and lastly copy that texture to the rendering target.
Also another implementation would be to draw a circle using multiple times SDL_RenderDrawLine.And I think this is the way it is being implemented in SDL 2.0 gfx
Or there is a more efficient way to do all of this?
Take this question more generally in means of if I would wanted to draw other shapes manually, which probably, couldn't be rendered easily with the 2D rendering API that SDL provides(using draw line or rectangle).
With the example of circles this is a fairly complicated question, it is more based on the visual quality you wish to achieve which will drive performance. Drawing lots of short lines will vary vastly based on how close to a circle you wish to get, if you are happy to use say, 60 lines, which will work on small shapes nearly seamlessly but if scaled up will begin to appear not to be a circle, the performance will likely be better (depending on the user's hardware). Note also SDL_RenderDrawLines will be much much faster for many lines as it avoids lots of context switches for rendering calls.
However if you need a very accurate circle with thousands of lines to get a good approximation it will be faster to simply use a bitmap and scale and blit it. This will also give you a 'smoother' feel to the circle.
In my personal opinion I do not think the hardware accelerated render API has much use outside of some special uses such as graph rendering and perhaps very simple GUI drawing. For anything more complex I would usually use bitmap based drawing.
With regards to the second part, it again depends on the accuracy of any arcs you need to draw. If you can easily approximate the shape into a few tens of lines it will be fast, otherwise the pixel method is better.
Related
Let's say I want to develop a Paint app and need to implement a brush engine. For a raster brush, you basically need to stamp a texture on touch locations with a given spacing.
-- Task: Composite a small image (brush tip) over a bigger one.
I decided to build a prototype first in CG using a CGContext to render the stamps and found out it performed pretty well even with coalesced touches and a decent size canvas (CGContext output size).
However, since I need to paint onto really big textures (8000x6000 would be great), I decided to give metal a chance. I know that this task might be trivial for someone with a background in Metal but I'm new in this field. So I tried to use CIFilters (Metal backed) for compositing the brush over the canvas and displaying it in a custom MetalImageView: GTKView.
I thought having the canvas and the brush as CIImages and displaying them in a Metal Layer would already be more performant than the naive CG implementation. But it's not. The CIFilter approach renders the entire canvas every single stamp(at: Point), whether in CG I just refresh a small rect around that point.
Now, I think I could accomplish that with the CIFilter if I could change the extent that is computed. I don't know if that can be done with Core Image, but I'm sure in metal would be really easy for someone with experience.
-- Question: Can a pure metal implementation be faster stamping images than the CG one, given that CG runs with Metal under the hood? If so, how faster? Is it worth learning how to do it, or should I better spend that time improving the CG implementation?
Note that I'm asking for a raster brush, not a vector brush with Bezier Paths which is way easier to code and runs faster but textured brushes can't be used.
I really appreciate any help.
There is actually a chapter in the Core Image Programming Guide about that. They describe continuous painting into the same texture using the CIImageAccumulator class. You can also download the sample app.
I think performance-wise there shouldn't be a huge difference. You should be able to optimize heavily by telling Core Image the region of interest and domain of definition (extent) of your brush stroke filter. Then it should be able to render only the necessary parts of the image instead of the whole thing in every frame.
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 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.
I'm planning on writing a game using javascript / canvas and I just had 1 question: What kind of performance considerations should I think about in regards to loading images vs just drawing using canvas' methods. Because my game will be using very simple geometry for the art (circles, squares, lines), either method will be easy to use. I also plan to implement a simple particle engine in the game, so I want to be able to draw lots of small objects without much of a performance hit.
Thoughts?
If you're drawing simple shapes with solid fills then drawing them procedurally is the best method for you.
If you're drawing more detailed entities with strokes, gradient fills and other performance sensitive make-up you'd be better off using image sprites. Generating graphics procedurally is not always efficient.
It is possible to get away with a mix of both. Draw graphical entities procedurally on the canvas once as your application starts up. After that you can reuse the same sprites by painting copies of them instead of generating the same drop-shadow, gradient and strokes repeatedly.
If you do choose to draw sprites you should read some of the tips and optimization techniques on this thread.
My personal suggestion is to just draw shapes. I've learned that if you're going to use images instead, then the more you use the slower things get, and the more likely you'll end up needing to do off-screen rendering.
This article discusses the subject and has several tests to benchmark the differences.
Conculsions
In brief — Canvas likes small size of canvas and DOM likes working with few elements (although DOM in Firefox is so slow that it's not always true).
And if you are planing to use particles I thought that you might want to take a look to Doodle-js.
Image loading out of the cache is faster than generating it / loading it from the original resource. But then you have to preload the images, so they get into the cache.
It really depends on the type of graphics you'll use, so I suggest you implement the easiest solution and solve the performance problems as they appear.
Generally I would expect copying a bitmap (drawing an image) to get faster compared to recreating it from primitives, as the complexity of the image gets higher.
That is drawing a couple of squares per scene should need about the same time using either method, but a complex image will be faster to copy from a bitmap.
As with most gaming considerations, you may want to look at what you need to do, and use a mixture of both.
For example, if you are using a background image, then loading the bitmap makes sense, especially if you will crop it to fit in the canvas, but if you are making something that is dynamic then you will need to using the drawing API.
If you target IE9 and FF4, for example, then on Windows you should get some good performance from drawing as they are taking advantage of the graphics card, but, for more general browsers you will want to perhaps look at using sprites, which will either be images you draw as part of the initialization and move, or load bitmapped images.
It would help to know what type of game you are looking at, how dynamic the graphics will need to be, how large the bitmapped images would be, what type of framerate you are hoping for.
The landscape is changing with each browser release. I suggest following the HTML5 Games initiative that Facebook has started, and the jsGameBench test suite. They cover a wide range of approaches from Canvas to DOM to CSS transforms, and their performance pros and cons.
http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/454
http://developers.facebook.com/blog/archive
https://github.com/facebook/jsgamebench
If you are just drawing simple geometry objects you can also use divs. They can be circles, squares and lines in a few CSS lines, you can position them wherever you want and almost all browser support the styles (you may have some problems with mobile devices using Opera Mini or old Android Browser versions and, of course with IE7-) but there wouldn't be almost any performance hit.
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.