In X-Plane there are two fundamental ways that a texture can be painted “over” a background image:
- Blending, whereby the alpha channel of the new top layer decides how much we see the top layer vs. the background.
- Additive Lighting, whereby the new texture makes the background lighter.
Blending is more common. For example, if you build an OBJ, the object appears “in front of” the terrain via blending. With blending, you put the color of your new layer in the RGB channels and use the alpha channel to indicate opacity. 1.0 alpha = 100% opaque, 0.0 alpha = 0% opaque, and alpha in between will create a blend. If you omit an alpha channel, X-Plane will treat the entire layer as 100% opaque.
When a layer is applied using additive lighting, the resulting color is the sum of the background plus the new color, clamped to the maximum brightness we can show on screen. Additive lighting is good for simulating effects that really “add light”. Some examples of additive lighting in X-Plane:
- All lighting billboards are drawn additively.
- Instrument overlays are additive if you pick the appropriate mode in Plane-Maker. (The option is labeled “glass” for generics, since most glass instruments work by adding light to a nearly black screen.)
- The emissive (_lit) texture of an object is added to the albedo (daytime) texture using additive lighting.
Now just a little bit of math. In RGB color terms, black = 0,0,0 and white = 1,1,1. So if we add a pure black texture to a background additively we get:
new_r = old_r + overlay = old_r + 0 = old_r
new_g = old_g + overlay = old_g + 0 = old_g
new_b = old_b + overlay = old_b + 0 = old_b
In other words,when using additive light, adding “black” does nothing, preserving the background.
And this brings me to my main point: any time you have additive lighting you don’t need an alpha channel. You can simply make your additive lighting texture black for the parts you want to be “transparent”.
This is why I generally recommend that emissive _LIT textures for objects not have an alpha channel. In fact, for “back-lit” and “additive” instruments (these are instruments that use a second emissive _LIT texture) Plane-Maker will indicate a warning if the texture has an alpha channel. If you have a texture that is applied additively, you don’t need alpha.
At this point you might be wondering: Ben, if additive lighting doesn’t require alpha, and all lighting billboards are drawn additively, why the heck is there an alpha channel for custom lights?
The short answer is: there probably doesn’t need to be one; the original setup for lighting billboards inherited a number of idioms from older versions of X-Plane, going back to versions where lighting billboards were not additive* (and thus alpha was necessary).
The long answer is: the alpha channel is often as a general “intensity” control to turn the light up and down in amplitude, while the RGB channels are often re-interpreted in strange ways. So while RGBA color is not necessary from a graphics standpoint, it is handy that there are four color channels in the custom lights because that gives us one more parameter to play with when designing really compicated lights (like VASIs).
* Note that lighting billboards that aren’t additive don’t look very good…hence Austin switched to additive billboards.
Back in olden times (read: X-Plane 6) X-Plane would look for file names with special extensions to enable special features. For example, in many cases appending the suffix _LIT to your texture name specified that you wanted a second emissive texture attached to your scenery.*
Then I showed up and started replacing the “find by extension” scheme with specific commands in configuration files to induce special behavior. On pretty much all of the modern text file formats, you need to use TEXTURE_LIT to specify your emissive texture, and once you use this command, you can use any suffix you want.
Why the change? I had three reasons:
-
Features by file naming convention is ugly. That’s just an aesthetic decision by me, and most users find file extensions simpler, so if this was the only reason, I’d be a bit of a jerk.
-
File naming conventions don’t grow over time. With file naming conventions, additional features would mean truly crazy conventions. Consider terrain files, where any terrain can be loaded with wrapped or clamped edges. (Wrapped edges are appropriate for repeating tiles of “land class” and clamped edges are appropriate for orthophotos.) We would end up with my_texture, my_texture_LIT, my_texture_wrapped, my_texture_wrapped_LIT, etc. What about the scale of the texture? What if we implement seasons? my_texture_2000_2000_wrapped_summer_LIT.png it is.*
By putting features in text files, we leave room for future expansion, and we have a lot more room to attach data to an image or control shading.
-
Probably most important: going to disk and loading lots of images is slow, so X-Plane loads images in the background while you fly. But checking the disk to see if my_texture_LIT exists is a disk operation too, and it is potentially one that we have to do immediately to understand our art assets. By having information about art assets in the text files and not file naming conventions, we can read one text file, rather than searching for all possible combinations of file extensions.
With X-Plane 9 we’re starting to see enough complexity in shading configurations and options that file names would be a non-starter. Consider some of the new features in version 9: normal maps and paged orthophotos. X-Plane 10 will introduce even more rendering and shading capabilities. These configuration options are better kept in a text file than a file name.
* Actually, Sergio and Austin were heading in that direction. Note that the names of the old ENV land classes were in the form CropCool0_000.dds. What are all the numbers? I don’t know, but Sergio had a plan to use them to select lots of different textures. This scheme was never implemented.
Austin attended the French X-Plane Congress last weekend; in response to some questions I have received, I want to clarify what is planned for DSF and X-Plane 10.
X-Plane 10 will extend DSF scenery capabilities by providing a number of new art asset types, as well as extensions to existing art asset file formats. We will not be changing the DSF file format or breaking compatibility with existing DSF scenery. If your DSF scenery works with version 9, I expect that it will work with version 10 as is.
(In fact, it looks like we do not even need to add new DSF extensions; DSF was designed to be a generic container for geometry data and properties, so we can usually extend X-Plane’s scenery system by simply defining new art asset classes and properties.)
An example will illustrate what I mean by extending the art assets, not DSF.
In X-Plane 9, you create a forest (whether in a base mesh or overlay DSF) by creating a DSF polygon referencing a .for (forest) art asset. X-Plane will render this by filling the area inside the polygon with lots of trees.
In X-Plane 10, you will be able to optionally tell X-Plane to put the trees only on the edge of the polygon, rather than filling the entire inside. (This feature will be controlled by using values on the polygon parameter that are larger than 255, at least I think.) This will mean that you can use .for files and DSF polygon not only to create forest areas, but also to create rows of trees along the edges of roads or fields. A row of trees made by a .for file and DSF polygon will render much faster than a large number of individual OBJ-based trees.
This kind of art asset extension is similar to what we have already seen; X-Plane 850 introduced three new art asset types (.str object strings, .lin line paint, and .pol draped polygons) that all produced new rendering tricks using DSF polygons. These art assets were added to provide high performance rendering of airport surface areas. The new art assets didn’t require any change to DSF because the representation of the position of these art assets is something DSF has always done: simple polygons.
DSF won’t last forever, but at least for X-Plane 10 it looks like we can do a third full cycle of the sim using DSF as our base container format for scenery position data.
In the past I have suggested that there is a limit to the value of additional VRAM when buying a graphics card. When I posted this, Nicholas from the org emailed me to point out that with third party add-ons VRAM was a lot more important.
At the time I wasn’t really convinced, but I’ve finally come around; it takes a while for the trend to get back to me. (I just don’t have time to look at everyone’s add-ons the way I used to 4 or 5 years ago.) It seems clear that airplane authors (and to some extent scenery authors) are using VRAM pretty aggressively. If you want to use third party add-ons and you care about texture res and texture sharpness, spring for some VRAM. It doesn’t cost as much as it used to, and authors are starting to use it.
What Lives in VRAM
Bear in mind that in any discussion of how your video card operates, anything I post is informed speculation. The driver provides an abstraction (OpenGL) of what the hardware does, and a lot of the bookkeeping isn’t visible to X-Plane at all. So what I am describing is typical of past video drivers that we have had insight to in the past, but it’s not universal, and it’s not at all guaranteed. (X-plane can’t demand any of this behavior of the video driver.)
In order of how “stuck” in VRAM things are we have:
- Video memory used for on-screen rendering. Depending on rendering settings you can lose anywhere from 12 to 24 MB of VRAM per million pixels on screen. So if you’re running at 1920 x 1200, you might be using 50 MB of VRAM just for the screen. If you use FSAA, you’re going to chew up VRAM even more aggressively. (Costs vary depending on the scheme; you might lose 4-16 MB x the FSAA level per million pixels on screen, depending on your GPU and driver.)
- Off-screen rendering for things like the water reflections, the panels, the cloud shadows, the airplane shadow, etc. These don’t have to be in VRAM all of the time, but they have to be in VRAM almost all of the time. Because they are created by the GPU, the driver tries hard not to move these out of VRAM. You might lose 6 to 16 MB of VRAM for these, depending on the airplane you use and settings. (Given 4 1024×1024 panel regions, the panel will chew up 32 MB!)
- Textures end up in VRAM, but only when they are used. The key here is “working set“. Only texures that are drawn need to be in VRAM, so over time stuff that isn’t on screen will be removed from VRAM. This is why when you see “600 MB of texture memory” in the rendering settings, there is no need to panic. The working set is usually much smaller.
- OBJ geometry actually lives in VRAM too, sometimes. Again this is a working set issue; objects that aren’t drawn don’t get cached there.
- Textures from airplanes and scenery packages that are not loaded don’t ever end up VRAM or even system memory; we only load what we need. Paged orthophotos have their resolution reduced while you fly, which makes their VRAM footprint quite small, even when drawn.
There are a few things authors and users are doing now that use up a lot of VRAM.
-
Monitors have gotten bigger; the VRAM used for the screen itself can never be swapped out, so the advent of the 1920×1200 LCD has taken its toll.
-
Since the panel texture is drawn off-screen, the panel texture is in an expensive category of VRAM use. Authors can limit the cost of this by using a single 1024×1024 panel region texture, if possible.
-
There is a hidden cost here: we pack together instrument textures into “atlases” to help with performance. The problem is that we pack for fit. Some of your instruments may be hidden but loaded into VRAM anyway because they sit in the same atlas texture as other instruments that are drawn. Thus you may be paying for the VRAM used by your entire panel even if a lot of it is hidden.
-
Because a lot of this VRAM is going to airplanes, reducing texture resolution doesn’t have as much impact as it used to; X-Plane tries to keep the user’s plane’s resolution as high as possible since it is viewed up close. The panel cannot have its resolution reduced at all.
But It Works Sometimes
I think what drives users crazy about VRAM exhaustion is that X-Plane will sometimes run smoothly, and then fail later. And sometimes really strange things, like moving X-Plane to the background, then the foreground, or changing liveries or rendering settings in a trivial way, will change performance.
I have discussed this a bit in past posts. But the key here is “working set”:
- In any one frame, we can access everything that is permanently in VRAM, plus as much data as we can put through the PCIe bus from the CPU to the GPU.
- We only need to access data in the working set (what is on screen).
- Some of VRAM is permanently used (e.g. memory for the screen itself).
- We lose PCIe bandwidth to both drawing from main memory (terrain is in your system memory and must go over the PCIe bus per frame) and from bandwidth spent juggling textures.
So the actual maximum throughput will have a lot to do with whether the video driver makes good decision about what lives in VRAM and what does not.
But how does the video card know what should be in VRAM? The answer is that it has to guess. It looks at frames going by and tries to use heuristics (that is computer-science geek speak for “carefully formulated wild guesses”) to decide what goes in VRAM and what does not. When the heuristics happen to make good decision, your video card kicks ass. And when it does not, your framerate tanks.
The only way to guarantee good framerate is to use so little VRAM that everything that needs to be in VRAM can be in VRAM, without depending on the video driver to make lucky guesses with its juggling.
And this helps us understand why strange things like livery reloads and backgrounding the sim can affect framerate (for better or worse). These operations seriously reshuffle VRAM – either by deleting textures and loading new ones, or by forcing everything out of VRAM so the video driver must try to repack video RAM all over again.
Unfortunately as a user this means that there’s not much you can do about this as a user. The main things would be: reduce screen size or FSAA or texture resolution, use fewer add-ons, or get more VRAM. Those peak bursts of framerate you see, they’re not going to be sustainable .
From one of the podcasts I listen to I just discovered Edward Burtynsky. He takes these amazing photographs of industrial landscapes – really scary post-apocalyptic images of oil refineries, chopped up cargo ships, etc. Take a few minutes to look through some of the images.
One of the side effects of working on X-Plane scenery for the last few years is that it has made me look a lot more closely at the world. Once you try to recreate the world on a computer (and watch your digital creation fall way, way short) you realize how much intricacy and detail every-day phenomena have.
So when I saw Burtynsky’s photos I immediately thought “he sees the complexity and beauty* and sadness of industrial landscapes the same way we do!”
* Beauty? I am not suggesting that the SOCAR oil fields are beautiful, a particularly good idea, or something I want more of. But I think that there can be a poetry in the image – perhaps a poetry of despair.
In my previous post I tried to break an OBJ down into a few basic sections:
- Global properties of the OBJ.
- Raw Mesh Data
- Commands, which in turn set per-batch state and then draw the batches.
The performance cost of an OBJ feature often has a lot to do with where in the OBJ the command shows up, e.g. is it global or per batch.
Global properties tend to affect OBJ performance on a one-time basis. For example, if you use cockpit regions, you pay a fairly large penalty for having the panel texture be set up even if you only apply that panel texture to a single texture. Sure enough, COCKPIT_REGION is in the global properties section of an OBJ.
Per-batch properties affect the OBJ in two ways:
- Every command you see in the commands section is going to involve some CPU intervention. A very long commands section is more work for an OBJ.
- Every time there are attributes between TRIS commands, it defines a new “batch” – that is, a separate instruction to the graphics card to draw a new and distinct setup. Think of this as shutting down the factory to reconfigure the assembly line.
Generally batch count is more important than total commands. In other words, in evaluating this:
TRIS 0 300
ATTR_light_level 0 1 some_dataref
ATTR_no_blend 0.5
TRIS 300 12
the fact that there are two attributes is less interesting than the fact that there are two batches (the two TRIS commands run with different state). Even if you got rid of the no-blend attribute, you’d still have two batches because of the light-level change.
The most powerful aspect of the OBJ format is bulk data handling – that is, you have to add a huge number of triangles before the number of triangles becomes a performance problem.
For this reason, you should never use an attribute to reduce geometry count. A few examples:
- Don’t use ATTR_no_cull to reduce triangle count – simply issue the indices of the triangle twice.
- Don’t use ATTR_flat_shade to reduce vertex count – simply use more vertices with correct per-vertex normals to simulate flat shading.
- Prefer texturing to materials whenever possible.
Finally a note on weighting: for airplanes, where the total number of objects is low (a few dozen) global object properties often matter most. For example, on an airplane, choosing to use huge panel regions, or huge textures can make a big difference in performance. By comparison, batches aren’t that expensive unless you do something really crazy.
By comparison, for scenery, batches matter more; X-Plane will share the global properties of objects across hundreds or thousands of objects, but each batch hurts framerate. So when making autogen-style scenery, batches are most important.
A number of people are working on an update to Jonathan’s Blender X-Plane export scripts; this post is aimed at shedding some light on some of the recent changes to the OBJ format. X-Plane 9 introduced a number of new OBJ features (manipulators, invisible geometry and camera collisions, dataref-driven control of emissive texturing, normal maps, and a number of new light billboard options). If you simply read the new OBJ commands in the order they were added to the format, it’s just a soup of funny names. But there is some logic to how the OBJ format is extended.
The World’s Simplest OBJ
Here is a very simple OBJ file, broken up by my annotations. First we have the header and global section:
A
800
OBJ
TEXTURE great_image.dds
POINT_COUNTS 24 0 0 36
the global section describes properties universal to the entire OBJ. For example, what textures will be used to draw the object?
We picked up a few new global properties in the version 9 run:
- Normal maps are declared globally for the entire OBJ.
- The metrics of any panel regions to be used are declared globally.
We may pick up new global attributes in the future; if we do, they will be properties that apply to the entire obj.
Next comes the data section:
VT 0.449997 0.300003 0.860001 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
VT 0.449997 0.300003 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000
VT 0.449997 -0.509995 0.860001 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000
...
IDX10 0 1 2 3 2 1 4 5 6 7
...
IDX 21
I have removed a lot of the data section, because there’s not much to be said about it. The data section contains the raw data for the meshes in your OBJ, and it hasn’t changed since the OBJ 8 format was introduced.
The third and final section is the most interesting one: the commands section.
ATTR_LOD 0 3000
ATTR_hard asphalt
TRIS 0 36
The commands section describes how the data is used in the form of serial instructions to X-Plane. Most changes to the OBJ format have come in the form of new commands. We can categorize our commands into a few buckets:
- Drawing commands create “stuff”. There aren’t very many drawing commands, and new ones don’t appear very frequently. TRIS and LINES are the main commands, but the smoke commands also fall into this category, as do the light billboard commands. The new light billboard command LIGHT_PARAM is the only new drawing command for version 9, and it probably warrants its own blog post.
- Attribute commands change how stuff is drawn – they effectively define properties for drawing on all triangles that can be modified. We picked up a number of new attributes: manipulators (controlling how the mouse works), light level control, solid camera, draw disabling, deck style hard surfaces, and panel regions. (While you must declare the panel region locations globally, a panel region is enabled for a specific batch.)
- ATTR_LOD is sort of an exception, because it defines the structure of the model (e.g. a model with LOD really contains several separate command lists, of which only one is used).
Most new extensions to the OBJ format come in the form of new attributes. Attributes generally apply to a specific mesh within your model, not to the entire model.
Note that attributes can be thought of as “per mesh” or “per batch” properties, because they affect only the batches of mesh (TRIS commands) between the attribute being turned on and turned back off again.
Where Will New Features Appear?
I try to post some of my crazier ideas regarding OBJ on the scenery system RFCs page. Looking at the extensions, we can see how these extensions will all be either global, drawing primitive, attribute, or OBJ structure extensions. (I am not promising that any of these RFCs will be implemented, just showing how the OBJ format grows.)
- Additive LOD. This is a change to the structure of an OBJ, but it doesn’t actually change the format, just the legal LOD values.
- Explicit OBJ Height. This is a global property on the OBJ.
- Global Texture Variants would be a global property on the OBJ’s textures.
- Global Object Attributes are new global properties – they move some per-batch attributes to be object-wide.
- Draped Object Geometry would be per batch.
In summary, the vast majority of proposed extensions are new per batch or per object properties.
Next: what are the implications on performance of the various sections of an OBJ?
I’ll take a break from iPad drivel for a few posts; at least one or two of you don’t already own one. (Seriously, it’s simply easier to blog about X-Plane for iPad because it is already released; a lot of cool things for the desktop are still in develpment.)
In response to my comments on water reflections in X-Plane 950, some users brought up ray tracing.
My immediate thought is: I will start to think more seriously about ray tracing once it becomes the main technology behind first person shooters (FPS).
Improvements in rendering technology come to FPS before flight simulators (and this is true for the combat sims and MSFS series too, not just us). Global shadows, deferred rendering, screens-space ambient occlusion…the cool new tricks get tried out on FPS; by the time they make it into a flight simulator the technology has moved from “clever idea” to “standard issue.”
Consider that X-Plane now finally has per-pixel lighting. Why didn’t we have it when the FPS first did? Well, one reason is that the FPS were cheating. If you look at the papers suggesting how to program per-pixel lighting, at the time there were all sorts of clever techniques involving baking specular reflections into cube maps and other such work-arounds to improve performance. These were necessary because titles at the time were doing per-pixel lighting on hardware that could barely handle it. X-Plane’s approach (as well as other modern games) is to simply program per pixel lighting and trust that your GeForce 8800 or Radeon 4870 has plenty of shader power.
I believe that the reason for the gap between FPS and flight simulators come from two sources:
-
Viewpoint. You can put the camera quite literally anywhere in a flight simulator, and thus the world needs to look good from virtually any position. By comparison, if your game involves a six foot player walking on the ground (and sometimes jumping 10 feet in the air) you know a lot about what the user will never see, and you can pull a lot of tricks to reduce the performance cost of your world based on this knowledge. (This kind of optimization applies to racing games too.
To give one simple example of the kind of optimization a shooter can make that a flight simulator cannot, consider “portal culling”. A portal-culled world is one where the visibility of distinct regions have been precomputed. A trivial example is a house. Each room is only visible through the doors of the other rooms.* Thus when you are walking through a room, virtually no other room is being drawn at all. The entire world is only 20 by 20 meters. Thus the developers know that they have the entire hardware “budget” of computing power to dedicate to that one room and can load it up with effects, even if they are still expensive.
(A further advantage of portal culling is a balance of effects. Because rooms are not drawn together in arbitrary combinations, the developers may find ways to cheat on the lighting or shadowing effects, and they know nothing will “clutter” the world and ruin the cheats.)**
-
Often the FPS will have pre-built content, rather than user-configurable content. Schemes like portal culling (above) only work when you know everything about the world ahead of time and can calculate what is visible where. The same goes for many careful cheats on visual effects.
But a flight simulator is more like a platform: users add content from lots of different sources, and the flight simulator rendering engine has to be able to render an effect correctly no matter what the input. This means the scope of cheating is a lot smaller.
Consider for example water reflections. In a title with pre-made content, the artists can go into the world in advance and mark items as “reflects”, “doesn’t reflect”, reducing the amount of drawing necessary for water reflections. The artist simply has to look around the world and say “ah – this mountain is no where near a lake – no one will notice it.”
X-Plane can’t make this optimization. We have no idea where there will be water, or airports, or you might be flying, or where there might be another multiplayer plane. We know nothing. Everything is subject to change with custom scenery. So we can’t cheat – we have to do a lot of work for reflections, some of which might be wasted. (But it would be too expensive in CPU power to figure out what is wasted while flying.)
Putting it all together, my commentary on ray-tracing is this: the FPS will be able to integrate small amounts of ray tracing first, because they will be in a position to deploy it tactically, using it only where it is really necessary, in hybrid ray-trace + rasterized engines. They’ll be able to exclude big parts of the scene from the ray tracing pass, improving performance. They’ll be able to “dumb down” the quality of the ray trace in ways that you can’t see, again improving performance. The result of all of this will be some ray tracing in FPS when the hardware is just barely ready.
For a flight simulator, it will take longer, because we’ll need hardware that can do a lot more ray tracing work. We won’t know as much about our world, which comes from third party content, so we won’t be able to eliminate visually unimportant ray traces. Like deferred rendering, shadow mapping, SSAO and a number of other effects, flight simulators will need more computing power to apply the effects to a world that can be modified by users.
(Is ray tracing even useful, compared to rasterization? I have no prediction. Personally I am not excited by it, but fortunately I don’t have to make a good guess as to whether it is the future of flight simulation. The FPS will be able to, by effective cheating, apply ray tracing way before us, and give us a sneak peak into what might be possible.)
* There never are very many windows in those first person shooters, are there?
** To be clear: there is nothing negative about the term “cheat” in computer graphics. A way to cheat on the cost of an algorithm means the developers are very good at their jobs! “Cheating” on the cost of algorithm means more efficient rendering. If the term cheating seems negative, substitute “lossy optimization”.
If you look at funky pictures of X-Plane on line, a fair number of them will show incorrect water reflections. I am working on some bug fixes for the reflection code for 950. Bug fixes might not even be the right term. To understand the incorrect reflections, you have to understand what the water code can and cannot do.
The water reflection code renders a reflection based on a flat plane. This limitation comes from the mathematics of the algorithm – a compromise to have water reflections that run at “real-time” speeds. (Real-time is graphics nerd speak for 20-30 fps and not 1-2 fps.)
As it turns out, the Earth is not flat. So we can pick up a number of reflection “bugs”, due to the limits of the approximation we are using:
- Over very large distances, the flat plane is a bad approximation of a water surface. The flat plane simply can’t be “right” everywhere for any large scene. This isn’t a bug, it’s a ceiling on our maximum quality – a design constraint.
- If we have two water surfaces at different elevations (e.g. a river with a dam) we can’t have our reflection plane match both. So some scenes may have wrong reflections with multi-level water. This too is a design constraint.
- If our reflection plane is at the wrong height or the wrong slope, it is going to produce really weird results. The reflection plane being in the wrong place despite a small scene with one level of water – that’d be a bug.
- There is an art to positioning the plane – if we have a large scene (so the round earth means there is no one perfect plane) some locations of the plane will look better than others.
Now one fall-out of all of this is that things are going to look better if water is really flat, which is not always the case (both for some parts of the global scenery with production errors and some third party scenery). Where the water is sloped or contains bumps, we hit the multi-level case where we should not and we face reflection plane placement problems.
Finally, if the scenery mesh contains slanted water, we’re really going to be hosed – almost by definition if X-Plane uses a sane water reflection plane, it won’t be sloped, and thus this sloped water is going to be unaligned with the reflection plane and produce something that looks really funky.
So my work on 950 is aimed at having X-Plane be less easily fooled by complex and incorrect scenes less often. (Note that X-Plane can’t tell the difference between Norway, where we really have water at multiple elevations, and bad input data to MeshTool.)
Even with these fixes, sloped water is still going to look pretty strange (because it is strange). And even with these fixes, multi-level water will still have its reflections approximated at best. But hopefully the visuals from the sim will be less jittery while flying over tricky DSFs.
I’m hoping we’ll have a beta 2 in the next week or two.
This isn’t supposed to be a coding blog, but users do ask about DirectX vs. OpenGL, or sometimes start fights in the forums about which is better (and yes, my dad can beat up your dad!). In past posts I have tried to explain the relationship between OpenGL and DirectX and the effect of OpenGL versions on X-Plane.
At the Game Developers Conference 2010 OpenGL 4.0 was announced, and it looks to me like the released the OpenGL 3.3 specs at almost exactly the same time. So…is there anything interesting here?
A Quick Response
In understanding OpenGL 4.0, let’s keep in mind how OpenGL works: OpenGL gains new capabilities by extensions. This is like a new item appearing on a menu at your favorite restaurant. Today we have two new specials: pickles in cream sauce, and fried potatoes. Fortunately, you don’t have to order everything on the menu.
So what is OpenGL 4.0? It’s a collection of extensions: if an implementation has all of them it can call itself 4.0. An application might not care. If we only want 2 of the 4 extensions, we’re just going to look for those 2 extensions, not sweat what “version number” we have.
Now go back to OpenGL 3.0, and DirectX 10. When DX10 and the GeForce 8800 came out, nVidia published a series of OpenGL extensions that allowed OpenGL applications to use “cool DirectX 10 tricks”. The problem was: the extensions were all NVidia specific tricks. After a fairly long time, OpenGL’s architectural review board (ARB) picked up the specs, and eventually most of them made it into OpenGL 3.0 and 3.1. The process was very slow and very drawn out, with some of these “cool DirectX 10 tricks” only making it into “official” OpenGL now.
If there were OpenGL extensions for DirectX 10, who cares that the ARB was so slow to adopt these standards proposed by NVidia? Well, I do. If NVidia proposes an extension and then ATI proposes a different extension and the ARB doesn’t come up with a unified official extension, then application like X-Plane have to have different code for different video cards. Our work-load doubles, and we can only put in half as many new cool features. Applications like X-Plane depend on unity among the vendors, via the ARB making “official” extensions.
So the most interesting thing about OpenGL 4.0 is how quickly they* made official ARB extensions for OpenGL that match DirectX 11’s capabilities. (NVidia hasn’t even managed to ship a DirectX 11 card yet, ATI’s HD5000 series has only been out for a few months, and OpenGL already has a spec.) OpenGL 4.0 exposes pretty much everything that is interesting in DirectX 11. By having official ARB extensions, developers like Laminar Research now know how we will take advantage of these new cards as we plan new features.
Things I Like
So are any of the new OpenGL 3.3 and 4.0 capabilities interesting? Well, there are three I like:
-
Dual-source blending. It is way beyond this blog to explain what this is or why anyone would care, and it won’t show up as a new OBJ ATTRibute or anything. But this extension does make it possible to optimize some bottlenecks in the internal rendering engine.
-
Instancing. Instancing is the ability to draw a mesh more than one time (with slight variants in each copy) with only one instruction to the graphics card. Since many games (like X-Plane) are limited in their ability to use the CPU to talk to the graphics card (we are “CPU bound” when rendering) the ability to ask for more work with fewer requests is a huge win.
There are a number of different ways to program “instancing” with OpenGL, but this particular extension is the one we prefer. It is not available on NVidia cards right now. So it’s nice to see it make it into the core spec – this is a signal that this particular draw path is considered important and will get attention.
-
The biggest feature in OpenGL 4.0 (and DirectX 11) is tessellation. Tessellation is the ability for the graphics card to turn a crude mesh with a few triangles into a detailed mesh with lots of triangles. You can see ATI demoing this capability here.
There are a lot of other extensions that make up OpenGL 3.3 and 4.0 but those are the big three for us.
* who is “they ” for OpenGL? Well, it’s the architectural review board (ARB) and the Khronos group, but in practice these groups are made up of employees from NVidia, ATI, Apple, Intel, and other companies, so it’s really a collective of people involved in OpenGL use. There’s a lot of input from hardware vendors, but if you read the OpenGL extensions, you’ll sometimes see game development studios get involved; Transgaming and Blizzard show up every now and then.
