I'm creating a puzzle game that generates random sized pieces with 2D meshes. The images contain transparent portions and sometimes a piece is completely transparent. I need to detect what percentage of a piece is transparent. One way I found to do this is to go pixel by pixel. I posted my solution to this HERE. However, this process adds a few seconds during loading which I'd like to avoid and I'm looking for other ideas
I've considered using the selection outline of a MeshCollider to somehow to get a surface area I can compare to the surface area of the mesh but everything I find is on the rendering of outline with specialized shaders. Does anyone have any ideas on to solve this?
.
1) I guess you could add a PolygonCollider2D to your sprite and use its Path for the outline and calculation of the surface area. Not sure however if this will be faster.
PolygonCollider2D.GetPath:
A path is a cyclic sequence of line segments between points that define the outline of the Collider
Checking PolygonCollider2D.GetTotalPointCount or path length may be good enough to determine if the sprite is 'empty'.
Sprite.vertices, Sprite.triangles may also be helpful.
2) You could also improve performance of your first approach:
instead of calling GetPixel as you do now use GetPixels or GetPixels32 and loop through the array in one for loop.
Using GetPixels can be faster than calling GetPixel repeatedly, especially for large textures. In addition, GetPixels can access individual mipmap levels. For most textures, even faster is to use GetPixels32 which returns low precision color data without costly integer-to-float conversions.
check only every 2nd or nth pixel as it should be good enough for approximation
limit number of type casts
Related
For now, I use a 3D array to represent my voxels in different chunks. I want to render voxels which can be visible by the player, but the way I do it is totally not efficient:
I iterate over the whole 10*10*10 chunk and check on every voxel if there is a neighbor equal to Air. Then I render separatly each faces which can be visible. So I mostly check every voxels 6 times. And I do this for all chunks.
Is there a better way to proceed or an algorithm to reduce iterating?
I basicly don't know if it is better to work with 3D Array or Octree...
Thank.
I've been thinking through this problem recently, and since nobody has answered you I thought I'd mention some of the ideas I've come across.
Firstly, it's work noting that you only need to calculate which faces to render once, since that only changes if you remove or add a voxel, and then you only need to recalculate the voxels immediately around the place where you made the change. Just use a flag to mark for rendering and cache that until something changes. If you aren't already doing this, this will give you a big performance boost over calculating every frame.
I also recommend looking into this extremely fast raycasting algorythm:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.42.3443&rep=rep1&type=pdf
You can use it for fast collision testing, and also for cull-testing. You can cast at grid nodes to see if any part of a face is visible.
In my web application I only need to add static objects to my scene. It worked slow so I started searching and I found that merging geometries and merging vertices were the solution. When I implemented it, it indeed worked a lot better. All the articles said that the reason for this improvement is the decrease in number of WebGL calls. As I am not very familiar with things like OpenGL and WebGL (I use Three.js to avoid their complexity), I would like to know why exactly it reduces the WebGL calls?
Because you send one large object instead of many littles, the overhead reduces. So I understand that loading one big mesh to the scene goes faster than many small meshes.
BUT I do not understand why merging geometries also has a positive influence on the rendering calculation? I would also like to know the difference between merging geometries and merging vertices?
Thanks in advance!
three.js is a framework that helps you work with the WebGL API.
What a "mesh" is to three.js, to webgl, it's a series of low level calls that set up state and issue calls to the GPU.
Let's take a sphere for example. With three.js you would create it with a few lines:
var sphereGeometry = new THREE.SphereGeometry(10);
var sphereMaterial = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:'red'});
var sphereMesh = new THREE.Mesh( sphereGeometry, sphereMaterial);
myScene.add( sphereMesh );
You have your renderer.render() call, and poof, a sphere appears on screen.
A lot of stuff happens under the hood though.
The first line, creates the sphere "geometry" - the cpu will a bunch of math and logic describing a sphere with points and triangles. Points are vectors, three floats grouped together, triangles are a structure that groups these points by indecis (groups of integers).
Somewhere there is a loop that calculates the vectors based on trigonometry (sin, cos), and another, that weaves the resulting array of vectors into triangles (take every N , N + M , N + 2M, create a triangle etc).
Now these numbers exist in javascript land, it's just a bunch of floats and ints, grouped together in a specific way to describe shapes such as cubes, spheres and aliens.
You need a way to draw this construct on a screen - a two dimensional array of pixels.
WebGL does not actually know much about 3D. It knows how to manage memory on the gpu, how to compute things in parallel (or gives you the tools), it does know how to do mathematical operations that are crucial for 3d graphics, but the same math can be used to mine bitcoins, without even drawing anything.
In order for WebGL to draw something on screen, it first needs the data put into appropriate buffers, it needs to have the shader programs, it needs to be setup for that specific call (is there going to be blending - transparency in three.js land, depth testing, stencil testing etc), then it needs to know what it's actually drawing (so you need to provide strides, sizes of attributes etc to let it know where a 'mesh' actually is in memory), how it's drawing it (triangle strips, fans, points...) and what to draw it with - which shaders will it apply on the data you provided.
So, you need a way to 'teach' WebGL to do 3d.
I think the best way to get familiar with this concept is to look at this tutorial , re-reading if necessary, because it explains what happens pretty much on every single 3d object in perspective, ever.
To sum up the tutorial:
a perspective camera is basically two 4x4 matrices - a perspective matrix, that puts things into perspective, and a view matrix, that moves the entire world into camera space. Every camera you make, consists of these two matrices.
Every object exists in it's object space. TRS matrix, (world matrix in three.js terms) is used to transform this object into world space.
So this stuff - a concept such as "projective matrix" is what teaches webgl how to draw perspective.
Three.js abstracts this further and gives you things like "field of view" and "aspect ratio" instead of left right, top bottom.
Three.js also abstracts the transformation matrices (view matrix on the camera, and world matrices on every object) because it allows you to set "position" and "rotation" and computes the matrix based on this under the hood.
Since every mesh has to be processed by the vertex shader and the pixel shader in order to appear on the screen, every mesh needs to have all this information available.
When a draw call is being issued for a specific mesh, that mesh will have the same perspective matrix, and view matrix as any other object being rendered with the same camera. They will each have their own world matrices - numbers that move them around around your scene.
This is transformation alone, happening in the vertex shader. These results are then rasterized, and go to the pixel shader for processing.
Lets consider two materials - black plastic and red plastic. They will have the same shader, perhaps one you wrote using THREE.ShaderMaterial, or maybe one from three's library. It's the same shader, but it has one uniform value exposed - color. This allows you to have many instances of a plastic material, green, blue, pink, but it means that each of these requires a separate draw call.
Webgl will have to issue specific calls to change that uniform from red to black, and then it's ready to draw stuff using that 'material'.
So now imagine a particle system, displaying a thousand cubes each with a unique color. You have to issue a thousand draw calls to draw them all, if you treat them as separate meshes and change colors via a uniform.
If on the other hand, you assign vertex colors to each cube, you don't rely on the uniform any more, but on an attribute. Now if you merge all the cubes together, you can issue a single draw call, processing all the cubes with the same shader.
You can see why this is more efficient simply by taking a glance at webglrenderer from three.js, and all the stuff it has to do in order to translate your 3d calls to webgl. Better done once than a thousand times.
Back to those 3 lines, the sphereMaterial can take a color argument, if you look at the source, this will translate to a uniform vec3 in the shader. However, you can also achieve the same thing by rendering the vertex colors, and assigning the color you want before hand.
sphereMesh will wrap that computed geometry into an object that three's webglrenderer understands, which in turn sets up webgl accordingly.
I'm currently in the process of coding a procedural terrain generator for a game. For that purpose, I divide my world into chunks of equal size and generate them one by one as the player strolls along. So far, nothing special.
Now, I specifically don't want the world to be persistent, i.e. if a chunk gets unloaded (maybe because the player moved too far away) and later loaded again, it should not be the same as before.
From my understanding, implicit approaches like treating 3D Simplex Noise as a density function input for Marching Cubes don't suit my problem. That is because I would need to reseed the generator to obtain different return values for the same point in space, leading to discontinuities along chunk borders.
I also looked into Midpoint Displacement / Diamond-Square. By seeding each chunk's heightmap with values from the borders of adjacent chunks and randomizing the chunk corners that don't have any other chunks nearby, I was able to generate a tileable terrain that exhibits the desired behavior. Still, the results look rather dull. Specifically, since this method relies on heightmaps, it lacks overhangs and the like. Moreover, even with the corner randomization, terrain features tend to be confined to small areas, i.e. there are no multiple-chunk hills or similar landmarks.
Now I was wondering if there are other approaches to this that I haven't heard of/thought about yet. Any help is highly appreciated! :)
Cheers!
Post process!
After you do the heightmaps, run back through adding features.
This is how Minecraft does it to get the various caverns and cliff overhangs.
I'm new to game programming. And i have a question. I want to have a dotted circle to be drawn on the screen. I can use one big sprite (for example 256x256 pixels) which contains all the circle or i can use many small sprites representing dots.
I use cocos2d libs and i'm able to render using batch. So what is the best way to perform such tasks ?
In my opinion your best bet (if all the dots are the same) is to have one sprite of the dot, and repeat it in the shape you are looking for.
Generally you'll want a single asset for each unique graphic. You can combine those assets into a single sprite and reuse them. This allows for more flexibility as well as speed.
Most of todays graphics hardware is optimized to texture dimensions that are a power of two. Your sprites are likely to have other dimensions. By using sprites, you can minimize the padding that is needed to fill this space (and thus, minimize CPU/GPU cycles spent on correcting this internally). Besides that, the file size will be smaller, since you need less overhead and compression is likely to be more effective.
Go with one large sprite. It's fewer calls into the rendering engine, and adds flexibility to change the look (for example, if you decide to have the circle made of dashed lines rather than dots).
I'd like to hear what people think the optimal draw calls are for Open GL ES (on the iphone).
Specifically I've read in many places that it is best to minimise the number of calls to glDrawArrays/glDrawElements - I think Apple say 10 should be the max in their recent WWDC presentation. As I understand it to do this you need to put all the vertices into one array if possible, so you only need to make the drawArrays call once.
But I am confused because this surely means you can't use the translate, rotate, scale functions, because it would apply across the whole geometry. Which is fine except doesn't that mean you need to pre-calculate every vertex position yourself, rather than getting open gl to do it?
Also, doesn't it mean you can't use any of the fan/strip settings unless you just have a continuous shape?
These drawbacks make me think I'm not understanding something correctly, so I guess I'm looking for confirmation that I should:
Be trying to make an uber array of all triangles to draw.
Resign myself to the fact I'll have to work out all the vertex positions myself.
Forget about push'ing and pop'ing each thing to draw into it's desired location
Is that what others do?
Thanks
Vast question, batching is always a matter of compromise.
The ideal structure for performance would be, as you mention, to one single array containing all triangles to draw.
Starting from here, we can start adding constraints :
One additional constraint is that
having vertex indices in 16bits saves
bandwidth and memory, and probably
the fast path for your platform. So
you could consider grouping triangles
in chunks of 65536 vertices.
Then, if you want to switch the
shader/material/glState used to draw
geometry, you have no choice (*) but
to emit one draw call per
shader/material/glState. So grouping
triangles could consider grouping by
shaderID/materialID/glStateID.
Next, if you want to animate things,
you have no choice (*) but to
transmit your transform matrix to GL,
and then issue a draw call. So
grouping triangles could consider
grouping triangles by 'transform
groups', for example, all static
geometry together, animated geometry
that have common transforms can be
grouped too.
In these cases, you'd have to transform the vertices yourself (using CPU) before merging the meshes together.
Regarding triangle strips, you can transform any mesh in strips, even if it has discontinuities in its topology, by introducing degenerate triangles. So this is a technique that always apply.
All in all, reducing draw calls is a game of compromises, some techniques might work well for a 3d model, while others may be more suited for other 3d models. IMHO, the key is to be creative and to carefully benchmark your application to see if your changes actually improve performance on your target platform.
HTH, cheers,
(*) actually there are techniques that allow to reduce the number of draw calls in these cases, such as :
texture atlases to group different textures in a single one, to prevent
switching textures in GL, thus
allowing to limit draw calls
(pseudo) hardware instancing that allow shaders to fetch transforms
from various sources to transform
mesh instances in different ways.
...