Thanks Kevin! That's disappointing (if also understandable) to hear that user-supplied shaders may never happen, but yeah that's a separate discussion.
*> I would need to be convinced that multiple applications would benefit from such a feature* Regarding other applications, I wrote about this in my initial email. I know there's a lot of discussion in this thread so it's easy for stuff like that to get lost, but I'd be happy to discuss in more detail if you're not convinced yet. *> , and that your proposed solution -- as documented and exposed by the public API -- is the best way to go.* Great! I'll prepare a draft PR, and a comprehensive detail of the design choices and my thoughts on each. It might be a little while before I send such a thing, since I'll take my time, but I'm glad to have the OK to get started on the second step outlined in the contribution guide. *> The next step, then, is to get feedback from other application developers as to whether and how they would use this.* Will do. There aren't many projects I've found that seem to use the 3D portion of JavaFX, so I don't know how much feedback I'll get from this, but I'll get feedback from the handful of projects which do use it, including the ones I highlighted previously. I was hoping for some of that feedback here, but as nobody has commented on whether/how they would use it, I'll start reaching out. *> A Draft PR might be OK as long as the focus is on the API and the use cases. I presume you have read the CONTRIBUTING guidelines [0], especially the part about adding new features? [1]* Yep! I'll prepare a draft PR, as well as a comprehensive detail of the factors I've considered behind the API design choices. Was holding off until I got your approval on the discussion. *> As Michael mentioned, it is helpful to discus how this might fit in with other possible future improvements.* >From my perspective, there aren't very many other features which are impacted by/conflict with vertex colors. I've detailed pretty much every feature I think could be added and how vertex colors do/don't impact them. *More realistic features (And how vertex colors impacts them):* - Supporting tri-strips, quads, or other primitives. (There are no implications that aren't there from existing design choices) - Allowing the user to disable mip-mapping. (Feature not related) - Allowing the user to change coordinate system. (Feature not related) - Fog (Feature not related) - New built-in primitives, similar to Cylinder.java, Sphere.java, etc: Cone.java, Capsule.java. (In theory we could support vertex colors on these, but I'm not sure what purpose vertex colors would serve here or how we'd expose this to the end-user.) - Built-in Quaternion & Matrix data structures. (Feature not related) - Allow setting texture wrapping mode. (REPEAT / CLAMP / etc, Feature not related) - Allow setting texture filtering mode. (LINEAR / NEAREST / etc, Feature not related) - Choosing polygon winding order. (Vertex colors not related) - Cube maps (Vertex colors not related) - Performance Improvement: Draw Call instancing (Feature not related) - More backends (Vulkan, Metal, DX12, etc). Vertex colors will be supported with minimal performance cost *Less realistic features (**And how vertex colors impacts them)**:* - User-supplied shaders. (Unlikely to be implemented due to the reasons Kevin provided) This feature does come with some design implications for vertex colors, but they have already been fleshed out & addressed earlier in the thread. - Deferred shading & support of > 3 lights. (Vertex colors don't add any new complexities to such a feature, but they might require an extra render pass, as would all the existing vertex buffers.) - Stencil Testing (Feature not related, I don't think this will be added due to the scene-graph design of JavaFX not working well with this feature conceptually) - Some method of creating an outline of a particular mesh. (A discussion would need to occur regarding how the outline would visually appear, which could include vertex data in theory.) - Automatic sorting of polygons by distance to camera for better handling of transparency. (Feature not related) - Non-phong lighting such as PBR. (Feature not related beyond the fact that vertex colors would be accounted for in the shaders) - Bloom (I don't believe this will be added as this feature is more niche and I don't think JavaFX has many people who'd benefit from this. Feature not related) - Normal Mapping (Feature not related) - Realtime shadows (Feature not related) *> If it proceeds further, be prepared to come up with a plan to document, test, implement the new API on all platforms. You will need to modify the shaders for each of the graphics APIs. We might ask you to provide at least an initial implementation for the in-progress metal pipeline* *> All of this is by way of saying that even if this feature proceeds, it won't happen quickly.* Of course. It should be no big deal to make the changes to support this feature in Metal (assuming I'm not responsible for the non-vertex color portions) However, I have a decent concern which is that I lack any Apple hardware to test with. I could work with others I know who have Apple hardware, but this testing would likely be remote. (Unless I can find someone nearby who's willing to let me borrow machine(s) to test.) Does Apple have anything akin to RenderDoc available for Metal? I'd assume so, but I don't know. Does JavaFX support 3D on iOS, or would this be looking to just support Mac OS X? Would be an extra device I don't have that would need to be tested. (And doesn't Apple charge in order to develop for iOS?) Maybe the person/group working on the Metal implementation right now would be able to assist when it comes to testing too? Do you have a contact I can reach out to, so I can get these questions answered? Thanks! On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:25 PM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > As Michael mentioned, it is helpful to discus how this might fit in with > other possible future improvements. Given the points you raised, I think we > can now decouple the discussion of whether and how to add vertex colors to > 3D TriangleMesh from the more general discussion of user-defined geometry. > Especially since adding support for user-defined shaders is not going to > happen any time soon (if ever). This has been looked at in the past, but > always runs into a couple fundamental problems -- for one, we do not want > to expose the low-level rendering library that Prism happens to be using on > a particular platform (which could change over time: OpenGL --> Metal on > macOS, etc), so we would need a graphics-language-neutral shading language > and figure out how to wire that up to the renderer without exposing Prism > internals. > > So back to your proposal to add vertex colors to 3D TriangleMesh, it seems > like a somewhat interesting feature, but not a high priority for us. I > would need to be convinced that multiple applications would benefit from > such a feature, and that your proposed solution -- as documented and > exposed by the public API -- is the best way to go. > > The next step, then, is to get feedback from other application developers > as to whether and how they would use this. A Draft PR might be OK as long > as the focus is on the API and the use cases. I presume you have read the > CONTRIBUTING guidelines [0], especially the part about adding new features? > [1] > > If it proceeds further, be prepared to come up with a plan to document, > test, implement the new API on all platforms. You will need to modify the > shaders for each of the graphics APIs. We might ask you to provide at least > an initial implementation for the in-progress metal pipeline [2]. > > All of this is by way of saying that even if this feature proceeds, it > won't happen quickly. > > -- Kevin > > [0] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md > [1] > https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#new-features--api-additions > [2] https://github.com/openjdk/jfx-sandbox/tree/metal > > > On 8/25/2024 5:45 PM, Knee Snap wrote: > > Hoping for further feedback from Michael and others on this feature > proposal, as I'm hoping to work on a draft PR soon. > > Thanks! > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:03 PM Knee Snap <kneeste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the clarification on how the design would work. >> >> However, this design is separate/unrelated to the goal of this feature >> proposal. >> Instead of extending TriangleMesh, you imagine a new separate mesh which >> can eventually be used to support user-supplied shaders. >> I do hope to propose such a feature at a future date (support >> user-defined shaders), but until such a proposal this system isn't super >> relevant / doesn't have much relation to the current proposal. >> >> >> *The future we both see for the future of working with meshes is a >> scenario with two (or potentially more) mesh classes: * >> *#1) *TriangleMesh (No dealing with shaders, buffers, and other advanced >> capabilities) >> *#2) *VertexMesh (or name it ShaderMesh, etc), which allows the user to >> do more advanced capabilities and lets the user define their own >> buffers, which could end up looking like the design you've shown. >> >> But critical to this design is understanding that only TriangleMesh needs >> explicit vertex color support. >> VertexMesh/ShaderMesh/etc would be able to support vertex colors >> implicitly due to its ability to have the user supply arbitrary buffers and >> shaders. >> So the whole purpose of my proposal is that this feature belongs in >> TriangleMesh (or an extension of TriangleMesh), but is currently missing. >> The example you've linked however does not extend TriangleMesh, instead >> it's starting work on the future proposal, ignoring the need for this >> feature in the existing TriangleMesh. >> >> I hope this helps clarify! >> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 12:53 AM Michael Strauß <michaelstr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I've created a rough prototype to illustrate what I mean: >>> https://github.com/mstr2/jfx/tree/experiments/vertexmesh >>> >>> This is how you would use VertexMesh in an application: >>> >>> var mesh = new VertexMesh<>(Vertex.PositionTexCoord.class); >>> >>> mesh.getVertices().addAll( >>> new Vertex.PositionTexCoord( >>> new Point3D(0, 0, 0), >>> new Point2D(0, 0)), >>> >>> new Vertex.PositionTexCoord( >>> new Point3D(100, 0, 0), >>> new Point2D(1, 0)), >>> >>> new Vertex.PositionTexCoord( >>> new Point3D(0, 100, 0), >>> new Point2D(0, 1)) >>> ); >>> >>> mesh.getIndices().addAll(0, 2, 1); >>> >>> var meshView = new MeshView(mesh); >>> meshView.setMaterial(new PhongMaterial(Color.RED)); >>> meshView.setCullFace(CullFace.NONE); >>> >>> stage.setScene(new Scene(new Group(meshView))); >>> stage.show(); >>> >>> >>> In addition to PositionTexCoord, we could then also offer >>> PositionNormal, PositionNormalTexCoord, PositionColor, >>> PositionNormalColor, and PositionNormalColorTexCoord. These objects >>> are supposed to be data carriers for vertices, and could be >>> user-definable in the future. >>> >>> Note that this is by no means a well thought-out proposal, it's just a >>> rough sketch to get the basic idea across. Most likely, this API is >>> deficient in many ways, so take it as a discussion point rather than a >>> serious API proposal. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 6:49 AM Knee Snap <kneeste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Gottcha, >>> > >>> > That helps give the context I need to better elaborate. And to be >>> clear I'm not suggesting you've done anything wrong, I realized maybe I had >>> implied that I was upset, so I just wanted to say explicitly that is not >>> the case. >>> > >>> > Anywho, regarding CustomMesh<TVertex> it would be impossible to >>> inherit from TriangleMesh.java without breaking the existing API >>> specification. At least, when I assume TVertex is the representation of a >>> single vertex. If this assumption was wrong, and it intended to be the >>> definition of the vertex, that scenario will also be addressed. >>> > >>> > TriangleMesh.java does not currently use vertex objects, and making >>> such a TVertex to represent each individual vertex is incompatible without >>> changing the current public TriangleMesh API specification. If the idea of >>> a vertex object only exists within CustomMesh<TVertex> and not >>> TriangleMesh, then it's a second-class way of writing to mesh data since it >>> would only work on a subset of available mesh types, whereas writing >>> directly to the buffers (as it works now) would have worked in all cases. >>> If I (someone using JavaFX) want to make utilities for creating meshes, it >>> rules out using TVertex unless I commit to never using the base >>> TriangleMesh. >>> > >>> > Additionally, using individual vertex objects provides no utility, but >>> requires a decent amount of added code complexity, as now there needs to >>> be a way to correlate vertex objects with buffer positions, and keep them >>> up to date as the buffer also changes. (What does it mean when a vertex is >>> moved in the buffer, but the ObservableFloatArray wasn't told that and it >>> was just given a new full array replacement? This is currently the only way >>> to update an ObservableFloatArray. Let's consider this vertex object for a >>> second. What is it? Is it a wrapper around the underlying buffer? If so, >>> every single time the array changes, all vertex objects would become >>> invalidated as there's no way to ensure the objects point to the correct >>> data in the array, or even to know if that data even exists anymore. If >>> it's not a wrapper around the array then we'd need to make changes to the >>> array backport to the object. Which has the same problem since the main way >>> to update the array is to provide a fully new array, meaning we would have >>> no way to associate the new array contents with the old objects. The only >>> solution would be to break the API spec and make these new vertex objects >>> the authoritative data source and not the arrays, which breaks existing >>> code. >>> > >>> > But I'd like to drive home the final nail. There's pretty much no >>> benefit to be had by having vertices as objects anyways. The 3D/GPU >>> paradigm is easiest to work with when treating vertex data as arrays and >>> not individual vertex objects. (Can refer to OpenInventor, Ogre, etc, to >>> confirm this design choice is standard across other object-oriented 3D >>> frameworks). This is because at the end of the day, this is what gets >>> passed directly to the GPU. Adding layers of abstraction is helpful for >>> creating/modifying the array, but not for representing it in memory. >>> > >>> > In other words, while TVertex might intuitively make sense from a >>> general object-oriented perspective, array buffers are almost always >>> preferable to vertex objects, even in object-oriented projects. And when >>> individual objects are desired, they can exist / act as wrappers in >>> user-code, which benefits of objects we cannot provide automatically, as it >>> requires information only the user knows about the organization of the >>> arrays. >>> > >>> > But what about if TVertex is not a vertex, but instead a definition >>> of what buffers the mesh has? Well, we already have that, and it's called >>> VertexFormat. Making it a generic parameter also wouldn't really provide >>> any benefit anyways. Instead of making CustomMesh<TriangleMesh>, I propose >>> expanding VertexFormat to allow for additional arbitrarily defined buffers. >>> However, I do not think we need to expose this functionality publicly yet, >>> which is why I've not documented it after the suggestion. We can keep it as >>> internal implementation details until it's time to add user-supplied >>> shaders. Doing so will give us maximum flexibility when it is time to make >>> it public. >>> > >>> > This way also has the benefit of us being able to retroactively >>> include TriangleMesh's points/texCoords/normals arrays in the shader system >>> with very little complexity, as they are already part of VertexFormat. >>> > >>> > Also thanks for the suggestion about the JEPs, I'll keep this in mind >>> making future proposals, and it sounds like I should follow-up discussing >>> various different implementation options and why I've chosen the one I've >>> chosen instead. I suspect the reason this feels somewhat underdeveloped >>> from the API perspective is because it's the simplest option I came up with >>> that had the best API outcome and I didn't elaborate as much as I could >>> have on why others I thought about weren't satisfactory. >>> > >>> > Thanks again for the feedback, I look forward to hearing back again 😁 >>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, 8:08 PM Michael Strauß <michaelstr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I understand that you propose to add a special-purpose mesh >>> >> (GouraudShadedTriangleMesh) instead of adding yet another buffer to >>> >> the existing TriangleMesh. That might be a valid idea if the goal is >>> >> to not overload the TriangleMesh class with special-purpose stuff. >>> >> >>> >> However, I still feel that the solution space in terms of API isn't >>> >> explored in enough detail here. It might be the case that >>> >> CustomMesh<TVertex> is not implementable (and it might also be the >>> >> case that CustomMesh<TVertex> isn't a good idea to begin with). But at >>> >> this point, none of this is obvious to me. >>> >> >>> >> Usually, when you propose a new feature, you should explain the >>> >> motivation, goals and non-goals, alternatives, and so on (you can use >>> >> a JEP template for that if you like). You adequately addressed the >>> >> motivation for your proposed enhancement, but I feel that the >>> >> discussion of different approaches should be expanded upon. I'm not >>> >> convinced that CustomMesh<TVertex> is impossible to implement: if >>> >> TVertex can only ever be PositionTexCoord, PositionNormalTexCoord, >>> >> PositionColorTexCoord, and PositionNormalColorTexCoord (and this is >>> >> enforced, for example using sealed interfaces), then why wouldn't we >>> >> be able to connect this to our existing shaders? >>> >> >>> >> Again, I'm not saying that this is a good idea; it might not work for >>> >> any number of reasons. But I think these alternative approaches should >>> >> at least be explored a little bit before dismissing them. Maybe it >>> >> will be GouraudShadedTriangleMesh in the end. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 4:45 AM Knee Snap <kneeste...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Was hoping to get feedback on my suggestion instead, but another >>> suggestion doesn't work. >>> >> > >>> >> > The idea of a CustomMesh<TVertex> is impossible to implement until >>> after we have fully user-supplied shader support, which I've already >>> addressed as being not the scope of this change (but instead it is a >>> separate future change which is not impacted by this) it also feels like >>> this point may have been missed as well. >>> >> >
