In Direct3D9, if I use tex3D in a HLSL program, on a sampler with a 2D texture bound what happens? Is this a legal operation, or is it undefined?
I just tested it, it just seems to work on my nvidia card, but I cannot find anything on if this is defined behavior.
Logically I would argue that you are doing a lookup on a x*y*1 texture, so even activated interpolation would always result in a lookup to the only 3d-plane available.
Related
I want to create a texture system where I add to a texture, not overwrite it. My texture has integer values (32 bit). What I want: Ex. I have an integer pixel with bits 100, I want to add 10 to it so it becomes 110.
My current implementation has two textures, one with the previous texture, and a texture to write on. The previous texture's values are read and then rewritten with the new data. Is there a better method to do so because using two textures feel very inefficient?
Depending on what you mean by "appending", you could use additive blending:
glEnable(GL_BLEND);
glBlendEquation(GL_FUNC_ADD);
glBlendFunc(GL_ONE, GL_ONE);
then, the routput of your fragment shader will by added to the current contents of the color buffer. If you use a FBO to render into the texture, you can directly add to this texture.
You should just be careful to not create any feedback loops, so your fragment shader's result should not depend on any sample of the very same texture you render to.
UPDATE
As noted in the comment, the texture in question has GL_RED_INTEGER format. Unfortunately, the blending is only applied on floating-point color buffers (including normalized integers), and never on unnormalized integers.
However, there is another potential approach. The rules for the "feedback loops" I mentioned before have been relaxed with recent OpenGL. The extension GL_ARB_texture_barrier explicitely allowes a fragment shader to read pixels from the same texture it is writing to:
Specifically, the values of rendered fragments are undefined if any
shader stage fetches texels and the same texels are written via fragment
shader outputs, even if the reads and writes are not in the same Draw
call, unless any of the following exceptions apply:
The reads and writes are from/to disjoint sets of texels (after
accounting for texture filtering rules).
There is only a single read and write of each texel, and the read is in
the fragment shader invocation that writes the same texel (e.g. using
"texelFetch2D(sampler, ivec2(gl_FragCoord.xy), 0);").
[...]
This extension has been promoted to a core feature of OpenGL 4.5. This is quite new and not available on a lot of platforms, so it is unclear if you can use it...
I want to pass my touch points to GPUImage (iOS)
The Point can be translate to float array, the length of the array is variable length.
But I must direct the length of array in shader.
Disclaimer: not a glsl expert
AFAIk you can't have variable length arrays like what you want. This is a GLSL limitation, not GPUImage so it's not a quick fix- the work you'll be doing will be with textures or glsl, not GPUImage.
Here's another stack overflow post about glsl: GLSL indexing into uniform array with variable length
There's two solutions that could work:
1) Limit the number of points. It's reasonable to limit touches but in practice may be hard to narrow them down if there's too many. You could pass these points in to a fixed length array or as individual constants (one for each point). If you really care about scalability with the number of points this isn't a great method because in your shader you'll have to do check each of these points and perform the relevant computation, which could be expensive when performed for the entire image (again, depending on your use case). If for each pixel you're checking a distance to point, this could be too expensive.
2) Input your points in a texture. You can either have 2 1D textures with the x&y coordinates and then treat them like an array (then go to option 1), or you can create a 2D texture, all 0, and set parts to 1 where there are touches. The 2D texture can have a lower resolution than the actual screen. This method could be a lot less work for the shader if you're doing something simple like turning finger touches black.
Your choice depends largely on what you're doing with the points in the shader.
I'd like to be able to pass an arbitrary number of varying values per vertex from the vertex shader to the geometry shader. I know that OpenGL has no dynamic arrays, so the number should be specified at compile time. The whole thing should run on an Apple MacBook with a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics card and a driver that only offers OpenGL 2.1, along with some extensions.
The problem here seems to be that the geometry shader takes its input in the form or an array with one element per vertex. As far as I can tell, there are no arrays of arrays available in my setup, and no arrays of interface blocks containing arrays either. So far, the best solution I could come up with is specifying a number of variables to pass this information, extracted from an array in the vertex shader and turned back into an array with a certain stride length in the geometry shader. That way, access to the values can still be performed using computed indices.
Is there a better, more elegant way?
From EXT_geometry_shader4 specification:
User-defined varying variables can be declared as arrays in the
vertex shader. This means that those, on input to the geometry shader,
must be declared as two-dimensional arrays. See sections 4.3.6 and 7.6 of
the OpenGL Shading Language Specification for more information.
For example, in the vertex shader, you may specify
varying vec2 value[2];
and in the geometry shader, this becomes a two-dimensional array, e.g. with triangles as input primitives
varying in vec2 value[3][2];
Note the counterintuitive order of array indices! Also beware that the array dimensions must be specified explicitly, using an integer constant. Using a non-constant integer variable or gl_VerticesIn yields a compiler error. Both remarks have been tested on the very MacBook Pro model mentioned in the question.
There are reasons why core OpenGL's geometry shaders don't work the way EXT_geometry_shader4 does. This is one of them. EXT_geometry_shader4 doesn't allow arrays of inputs because that would mean allowing arrays of arrays of values. And GLSL can't handle that (well, until recently, but that's only 2 months old).
Interface blocks can have arrays in them. Your problem is that GLSL 1.20 doesn't have interface blocks.
There's not much you can do besides use different variables and manually unroll all your loops. You could write a function that takes an integer value and conditionally returns one of the different values that correspond to that index, but that's about the best you're going to get with old-school GLSL.
I'm doing a project with a lot of calculation and i got an idea is throw pieces of work to GPU, but i wonder whether could we retrieve results from GLSL, if it is posible, how?
GLSL does not provide outputs besides what is placed in the frame buffer.
To program a GPU and get results more conveniently, use CUDA (NVidia only) or OpenCL (cross-platform).
In general, what you want to do is use OpenCL for general-purpose GPU tasks. However, if you are insistent about pretending that OpenGL is not a rendering API...
Framebuffer Objects make it relatively easy to render to multiple outputs. This of course means that you have to structure your processing such that what gets rendered matches what you want. You can render to 32-bit floating-point "images", so you have access to plenty of precision. The biggest difficulty is what I stated: figuring out how to structure your task to match rendering.
It's a bit easier when using transform feedback. This is the ability to write the output of the vertex (or geometry) shader processing to a buffer object. This still requires structuring your tasks into something like rendering, but it's easier because vertex shaders have a strict one-vertex-to-one-vertex mapping. For every input vertex, there is exactly one output. And if you draw GL_POINTS, it's not too difficult to use attributes to pass the data that changes.
Both easier and harder is the use of shader_image_load_store. This is effectively the ability to read/write from/to arbitrary images "whenever you want". I put that last part in quotes because there are lots of esoteric rules about data race conditions: reading from a value written by another shader invocation and so forth. These are not trivial to deal with. You can try to structure your code to avoid them, by not writing to the same image location in the same shader. But in many cases, if you could do that, you could just render to the framebuffer.
Ultimately, it's pretty much impossible to answer this question in the general case, without knowing what exactly you're trying to actually do. How you approach GPGPU through a rendering API depends greatly on exactly what you're trying to compute.
Basically, I have an array of data (fluid simulation data) which is generated per-frame in real-time from user input (starts in system ram). I want to write the density of the fluid to a texture as an alpha value - I interpolate the array values to result in an array the size of the screen (the grid is relatively small) and map it to a 0 - 255 range. What is the most efficient way (ogl function) to write these values into a texture for use?
Things that have been suggested elsewhere, which I don't think I want to use (please, let me know if I've got it wrong):
glDrawPixels() - I'm under the impression that this will cause an interrupt each time I call it, which would make it slow, particularly at high resolutions.
Use a shader - I don't think that a shader can accept and process the volume of data in the array each frame (It was mentioned elsewhere that the cap on the amount of data they may accept is too low)
If I understand your problem correctly, both solutions are over-complicating the issue. Am I correct in thinking you've already generated an array of size x*y where x and y are your screen resolution, filled with unsigned bytes ?
If so, if you want an OpenGL texture that uses this data as its alpha channel, why not just create a texture, bind it to GL_TEXTURE_2D and call glTexImage2D with your data, using GL_ALPHA as the format and internal format, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE as the type and (x,y) as the size ?
What makes you think a shader would perfom bad? The whole idea of shaders is about processing huge amounts of data very, very fast. Please use Google on the search phrase "General Purpose GPU computing" or "GPGPU".
Shaders can only gather data from buffers, not scatter. But what they can do is change values in the buffers. This allows for a (fragment) shader to write the locations of *GL_POINT*s, which are then in turn placed on the target pixels of the texture. Shader Model 3 and later GPUs can also access texture samplers from the geometry and vertex shader stages, so the fragment shader part gets really simple then.
If you just have a linear stream of positions and values, just send those to OpenGL through a Vertex Array, drawing *GL_POINT*s, with your target texture being a color attachment for a framebuffer object.
What is the most efficient way (ogl function) to write these values into a texture for use?
A good way would be to try to avoid any unnecessary extra copies. So you could use Pixel Buffer Objects which you map to your address space, and use that to directly generate your data into.
Since you want to update this data per frame, you also want to look for efficient buffer object streaming, so that you don't force implicit synchronizations between the CPU and GPU. An easy way to do that in your scenario would be using a ring buffer of 3 PBOs, which you advance every frame.
Things that have been suggested elsewhere, which I don't think I want to use (please, let me know if I've got it wrong):
glDrawPixels() - I'm under the impression that this will cause an interrupt each time I call it, which would make it slow, particularly at high resolutions.
Well, what the driver does is totally implementation-specific. I don't think that the "cause an interrupt each time" is a useful mental image here. You seem to completely underestimate the work the GL implementation will be doing behind your back. A GL call will not correspond to some command which is sent to the GPU.
But not using glDrawPixels is still a good choice. It is not very efficient, and it has been deprecated and removed from modern GL.
Use a shader - I don't think that a shader can accept and process the volume of data in the array each frame (It was mentioned elsewhere that the cap on the amount of data they may accept is too low)
You got this totally wrong. There is no way to not use a shader. If you're not writing one yourself (e.g. by using old "fixed-function pipeline" of the GL), the GPU driver will provide the shader for you. The hardware implementation for these earlier fixed function stages has been completely superseeded by programmable units - so if you can't do it with shaders, you can't do it with the GPU. And I would strongly recommend to write your own shader (it is the only option in modern GL, anyway).