Do you want to make games, or do 3D engine programming?
If you want to make games, use an existing engine. Unreal Engine, Unity, Godot, and Bevy are good choices. You'll learn the higher level issues of graphics, not how to push pixels around. The real problem is making it fun.
If you want to do 3D engine programming, be aware that there are too many bad game engines. In Rust land, where I am, there are three failed renderers, one unfinished one, and the one inside the Bevy engine. Those are the major projects. There are many other "I'm going to build a game engine" projects. Building a game engine takes about two years to get to the My First Renderer point. Getting to big, highly detailed, dynamic scenes is a much bigger job. Be aware of the scale difference between the first demo and a useful engine.
If you want a job, be aware that the game industry sucks. Pay is lousy, hours are lousy, jobs end when the project is completed, and, like Hollywood, there's an army of wannabees wanting in. Also, right now, because of the collapse of the Metaverse thing, there's a glut of experienced people.
Then there's mobile. Everything is a cram job. Not enough screen, not enough compute, not enough GPU, not enough battery.
This is why most indy games now are 2D. That's do-able. Often in HTML/JavaScript.
Agree with almost all of that. Unless you are targeting some obscure or old platform, I don't even know how you'd justify trying to write a 3D engine from scratch in 2026, except as a fun learning experience.
Also, think about tooling. Last time I wrote an engine from scratch, the tooling to support it probably took way more time than the engine did.
You can realistically get a featured 3d engine+editor up and running in a couple week with AI, working solo. Probably better than what Godot or even Unity gives you. Also AI is very good at editor/tooling stuff, I've even found it getting better at graphics programming stuff, just telling it to 1-shot implementing gpu occlusion culling, ddgi probes, taa, etc. type of features. Also for stuff like animation, I just told my AI "clone Unreal's animation blueprints" and I have a pretty featured animation system now. "clone Unity's particle system" and it 1-shots it in an hour with the runtime and nice editor tools. With the advantage being you can just implement exactly what you need.
Today, I would not recommend anybody to go into graphics programming:
I started in 2001, when NVidias first Geforce 1 ("the Gigatexl shadercard") was first announced:
The field developed since then with so much speed and innovations, it blows my mind of. Compared to what we could do 25years ago, the tech today is just fu*ing impressive.
Though, with this impressiveness comes a big "but": The space is developing at a speed which is really really scary. Nvidia came up with AI-based effects to influence scene & assets on their own - back then, we wouldnt have even thought about that this will be possible some day in realtime.
I do not know if its possible at all to be a "decent pro" in this field now - let me use other words: "Where is todays Jon Carmack?" - he was famous for squeezing everything out of the hardware, using ideas very hidden in the community etc. - today, there is not any competitive moat for people like him (he actually lives on his legacy), and that is because the field is so vast and evolving so fast that there is no chance to become the next one
I really dislike people that got into a thing and then try to discourage others. “Don’t be like me! I wasted my entire life” which is bullshit from a jaded person that lost passion. Telling people to stay away from graphics programming is not how to entice tomorrow’s John Carmack.
So here’s another perspective. If all you have done is web apps and Kubernetes, for example, do get into graphics programming. The feedback cycle is exhilarating, and you get to appreciate how mind boggingly fast your average computer is. You’ll get to optimize things that are ultimately unimportant because you have never learned how quick things are at the low level. There are a ton of resources and the maths is not too bad. You might find that 3D modeling is a creative outlet you didn’t know you needed. Even if completely inapplicable to your day job, you’ll find new ways to appreciate the art of programming computers, and might just decide to never touch Kubernetes again and spend the next 5 years writing your own game engine in your spare time. There are a lot of crazy people like that, and the community of hobbyists that are not ground down by life and game dev as a career is larger than you’d think. The Graphics Programming discord is a welcoming place if you want to check it out.
That's not the argument being made here. The field is changing. I had a good career in graphics, my life wasn't wasted at all. That doesn't mean a college student would have the same experience starting today.
Well, of course not, unless you are claiming that a future career in graphics is a bad idea, and there is no way you could say that with any reasonable certainty, I do not get the argument at all.
The field is always changing. You could find people in the 80s saying ‘I had a good career in graphics, a college student would not have the same experience starting today’
100% this. My dad told me not to get into it because of the web (he was a C guy) and instead I went head first into it AND did graphics programming (using C#, ewwww) just for the fun of it. Never discourage from someone wanting to learn, discourage the ego that thinks we need another John Carmack.
Getting into a field that is changing is the best time to get into that field. The playing field gets equalized and you have more opportunity to be established as a strong expert.
I can't say I know of any in the fields I'm familiar with. I've watched tech get increasingly top-heavy since the covid hiring boom and bust, although it was already trending that way.
There are a lot of fields dominated by boomers on the verge of retirement that are the safest bet for people who want to be good and make a good living but don't care to be extraordinary.
I've heard that from arborists, water treatment specialists, actuaries, a few others.
I feel more like people kept flooding into the middle and bottom, and companies that used to focus on top talent got watered down with those middle and bottom types.
A lot of the people getting laid off from Google and Meta would not have been hired at all in those places 15 years ago, for example.
Nobody who has ambitions of being the top of their field in engineering wants to be a water treatment specialists, arborist or actuary (maybe actuary if you're a stats nerd). What you're saying is go do something on the based on the potential for you to be professionally successful.. What about people doing things they love?
I hate these people telling people who love to do a certain thing that they should just become a plumber or an electrician. Not everything is about spending your life to make as much pieces of paper the govt tells you are worth something.
I'd rather be in poverty working with computers everyday and doing what I love than make 10k a month being a plumber. I actually can't stand you people.
Which fields would you say are the best to just be mediocre in
> I actually can't stand you people.
Unnecessary. People who want a basic middle class existence are not greedy and should not receive disdain. Many have responsibilities to their elders or others, have kids or want them, etc. so avowed poverty is not realistic.
Especially when bohemian poverty is an increasingly vanishing option on a practical level.
For example, "there's no chance to become the next one" implies it's only worth it to do something if you can become the absolute best person in the field.
It's a big world. Most of us will not be the very best at what we do. There are millions of fun games that were not written by John Carmack.
Yeah, like I imagine they mean that as a career it is competitive and demanding while having few openings so you shouldn’t stake your education and future on it, but I’m with you. This is something I really want to learn well enough to contribute the world.
Another staple of HN I abhor is “don’t bother learning this cool thing unless an official IQ test says you are over 150.”
I live after the motto of "always disregard the naysayers." If someone tells you a thing is a bad idea, you can safely ignore their advice.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Chill down. It's just someone who has a lot of experience in the field making an analysis of the current landscape of the career, using their own as an example.
> Telling people to stay away from graphics programming is not how to entice tomorrow’s John Carmack.
John Carmack was one of the _first_ graphics programmer to ever exist. The next John Carmack can't be in the same field. The same way we can't expect the next Beatles to be playing rock music. :)
Modern APIs make synchronization and resource management a lot more complex. Used correctly they result in better performance; used incorrectly...
That being said, "nowadays" most studios just throw shit at UE5 and get it over with. It's obvious from how terrible many games run that they don't have a rendering engineer on the payroll.
That sounds nice, but we need to make money and there aren't alot of opportunities. I'd love to get away from web and infra nonsense but,in The right domain id even do it for a pay cut. Hobby work won't get you a job
> I really dislike people that got into a thing and then try to discourage others. “Don’t be like me! I wasted my entire life” which is bullshit from a jaded person that lost passion. Telling people to stay away from graphics programming is not how to entice tomorrow’s John Carmack.
Given that almost everyone who wants to be a "graphics programmer" is also somehow gaming industry adjacent, it is extremely fair to ward them off from the folly. I do the same for anyone wishing to do "VLSI hardware engineering." If you have the skill to do either of those, you almost CERTAINLY have the skill to do something else that is almost as interesting and not saddled by garbage employers.
The primary problem with being a "graphics programmer" beyond a tyro is that the biggest consumer of graphics programmers is the game industry which is a notoriously shitty and wretched industry. Every ... single ... employer. So, from the point of view of future potential, "graphics programmer" has very little upside over pretty much ANY other type of programmers.
Second, "learning graphics programming" is like "learning phone programming", you spend more time fighting godawful software infrastructure more than you do actual programming. AI actually kind of helps this, but it doesn't completely remove the fact that 80% of your knowledge has a half-life of 18-24 months.
Finally, saying "I want to learn graphics programming" is like saying "I want to learn engineering." What "graphics programmer" means is vastly underspecified. 3D game rendering and 3D/2D CAD rendering and 2D vector rendering are completely different skillsets. GPUs are great at the first and kinda okay at the second and kinda lousy at the third. Which kind of "graphics programmer" are you even going to be?
> Second, "learning graphics programming" is like "learning phone programming", you spend more time fighting godawful software infrastructure more than you do actual programming. AI actually kind of helps this, but it doesn't completely remove the fact that 80% of your knowledge has a half-life of 18-24 months.
What kind of knowledge are you talking about here? learnopengl.com is still relevant today for its technical knowledge of fundamental graphics techniques, in spite of OpenGL itself slowly dying. The knowledge itself is overwhelmingly transferable to whatever modern graphics API you’re using.
With mobile development, I can see that you’re mostly learning surface level tools and APIs, which get changed frequently as a new iOS version comes out. But with graphics it’s actually the opposite — most large features come with new hardware, and because most of your customers are generally using older hardware, you can’t even use those new features until the majority of users have upgraded and support it (usually with a new console generation).
Regardless of what you think of the games industry, graphics programmers are highly in demand and paid relatively very well. It’s hard and there’s a lot of surface area to cover to really be excellent, but the knowledge is relevant, longstanding, and rewarding IMO.
> 3D game rendering and 3D/2D CAD rendering and 2D vector rendering are completely different skillsets.
Actually, no. Autodesk acquired Alias, and got the Maya animation system, in 2005. Soon after, the CAD tools had cinematic quality output. The architectural people loved this - good looking, accurate architectural renders came out. They especially liked that lighting worked, and you could use the CAD system to place real-world light fixtures.
> Which kind of "graphics programmer" are you even going to be?
If one follows OP's advice, none at all.
> it is extremely fair to ward them off from the folly
I completely disagree with this. It is a damaging and unproductive attitude to teach beginners and young people. Who are you to say their future career prospect is a folly? The only thing that defines the talents of tomorrow is that they have ignored such advice and then pushed forward the state of the art in ways you couldn't even imagine. This is how progress works.
> Who are you to say their future career prospect is a folly?
Someone who watched an industry chew up and spit out far too many young people. That's who and that's why I'm qualified.
> The only thing that defines the talents of tomorrow is that they have ignored such advice and then pushed forward the state of the art in ways you couldn't even imagine. This is how progress works.
You would encourage an individual to walk a path that is 90%(95%/99%) likely to damage their life horribly in the name of "progress"? Really? That's ... more than a little inhumane.
Would you encourage someone who likes writing to be a "journalist" right now? I should hope not. I wouldn't tell them to not write, but I sure would try to find a better way to channel that skill.
Or perhaps, if we substituted "pro basketball player" for "graphics programming" perhaps you could see the folly? Although, at least the individual playing basketball would gain the immediate benefits of being quite fit while the graphics programmer would enjoy no such side benefit.
Computer graphics is intrinsically interesting and rewarding. It sits at the intersection of several important fields, from computer science to mathematics to theoretical physics to low-level programming.
Maybe steering away from it is good advice for someone who's looking for a career transition but doesn't care about what they're actually doing. But that's not a good way to go through life; my advice to such a person would be to follow what they find interesting and valuable, and constantly challenge themselves to learn new things. Then deciding whether or not to learn computer graphics is relatively straightforward and it will be a net positive for the right kind of person. Even if they don't make it a career, the skills transfer well to many other areas.
Graphics programming has this one very, very useful aspect, exponentially more valuable today: the matrix algebra pipelines, and then the requirement to 'think in matrix transforms' is a wonderful and visually engaging way to get your foundation for machine learning math.
I don't really see this with modern graphics programming, but I was highly amused that my 1980s-1990s graphics skills (in particular, coordinate transform math) were very useful when I started working in robotics in the 2010s-2020s (because forward and inverse kinematics are exactly the same thing as 2d/3d projections.)
The trick there is that they both have related physical analogs, and machine learning math doesn't really (in that while you can visualize them spatially, it doesn't seem to help solve any problems in that space.)
A rotation matrix is but one of dozens and dozens of different types of basic transforms. It gets really fun with jacobian 12x12 matrix operations, and free form deformations. Which maps to ML far better than most imagine.
I mainly learned linear algebra via hands-on 3D graphics, and have a hard time thinking about a matrix as anything other than 4x4 and representing a linear transform...
How much do you even think about explicit matrix math when doing high-level ML?
3D graphics is so much more than the basic transforms. Add in all the deformation systems blending together, and those often being physics driven off the animation. You all have seen modern VFX, right? That is not basic 4x4 transforms.
I’ve not done high level ML, but I’ve done introductory ML and the truth is while the input space and the output space can have N and M dimensions, there’s not a lot of constraints involved. The matrix there are more randoms.
The whole ML field is basically about starting from random points and trying to find useful shapes and constraints. Basically like trying to get object likeness in clouds
there is absolutely no sense in which the SVD/PCA decomposition is just a rotation matrix. you should probably review your linear algebra textbook (hint: scaling is extremely important).
PCA is an orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix, so like all orthogonal transformations, it’s _literally a rotation_ in N-dimensional space.
SVD is more complex but ultimately it’s just another useful decomposition of a matrix.
I’m not sure why you’re both negative and dismissive. Transformation matrices in graphics are a good and approachable way to get used to linear transformations, which turn out to be useful pretty much everywhere.
Whether or not that helps you with ML depends more on what you’re doing in ML. FAANG doesn’t have a monopoly on ML or on interesting work in ML.
> PCA is an orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix
Yes you're now the second person the literally repeat the same thing I've already stated extremely clearly and succinctly: PCA is not just rotation (hint: you also need to understand covariance).
> I’m not sure why you’re both negative and dismissive. Transformation matrices in graphics are a good and approachable way to get used to linear transformations, which turn out to be useful pretty much everywhere.
I've already literally drawn the analogy/metaphor that I've drawn: if you think 2d/3d rotation matrices as they are used in graphics is any kind of introduction to the matrices in ML (modeling linear transformations or otherwise) then you're probably the type of person that believes that cash registers any kind of introduction to finance.
My point is not that hard to understand. Graphics in no way, way, shape, or form prepares you for ML. I don't understand why this is so controversial.
Have you done any serious graphics programming? Even at the OpenGL 1.x level? What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense.
Just because you’re rotating and translating things in 3-space doesn’t negate that you have a stack of transforms that relate a point in world space to one on screen space and you want to be able to project from one to the other.
Nor does it make it any easier when you need to think about how to stack transforms to achieve effects like rendering a mirror.
I honed a lot of useful practical skill with linear algebra trying to get graphics to do what I wanted. And I say this as someone who’s spent the bulk of my career using linear algebra in the context of quantum mechanics, physical simulation, and ML-adjacent areas.
> negate that you have a stack of transforms that relate a point in world space to one on screen space and you want to be able to project from one to the other.
no it doesn't "negate", it's all completely orthogonal (pun) or irrelevant. like for real just please take a look at
i don't understand who is having trouble reading the dialogue here you or i;
> there is absolutely no sense in which the SVD/PCA decomposition is just a rotation matrix... (hint: scaling is extremely important)
...
> SVD is the decomposition of a matrix into two rotation matrices and a scaling matrix, by definition:
yes that's exactly what i was implying when i said SVD more than just rotation, scaling is also important.
my point, which is my same original point, is that if you think learning about rotation/euler matrices is going to prepare you in any way, shape, or form for ML (vis-a-vis SVD/PCA or RoPE or anything else) you're in for a very rude awakening.
... and I have been both situations for longer and have seen tons and tons of them (*)... So?
Not so hypotheticals -- Heck the inputs that you want labelled could be rotation matrices. The desired output could be a rotation matrix. Generating more convenient features could be via a rotation matrix. Dimensionality reduction could be through a reduction matrix. Sparsity could be encouraged by proper use of rotation matrices. Shows up if you want to build in group theoretic invariance in your predictive model.
I'm a data scientist and not a graphics programmer, but my guess is that it's just abstracted away more. If you're using ML/DL libraries, you're mostly just calling APIs that handle the linear algebra and calculus for you. Unless you're actively contributing to those libraries, you likely don't ever need to "touch" any of the underlying operations. Up to a point, it's useful to understand how things work under the hood, but where that point is kinda depends on your job. For instance, I could write code to do 'naive' matrix multiplication, but I couldn't, like, contribute to BLAS.
How about people like Inigo Quilez? I'd say they're still quite high profile in today's landscape. And the main thing is I think there's just way more people in the field overall today too, not everyone can be famous! It's totally fine to not be as high profile as literally one of the most well known people in a field, it's fine to just do it because you enjoy it! The math and art of graphics (and games in general) programming is beautiful in and of itself.
> "Where is todays Jon Carmack?" - he was famous for squeezing everything out of the hardware,
Spinning that another way, there's Bill Gates (not sure of the authenticity though) saying something along the lines of why would he pay to spend that kind of time when CPUs/RAM/HDDs are getting faster/cheaper; users can just upgrade. If we determine which method is more successful based on their worth...
Right. Most of the clever stuff that Carmack is famous for moved from software into hardware.
By argument about not getting into graphics programming is different -- are 3D engines, with their vertices and textures, going to even exist a few years from now? Or will everything be rendered directly by an AI world model? How much code will a game contain, or will it simply exist in a series of cleverly-worded prompts?
Couldn't disagree more. I've only recently started digging into graphics programming and I've found it incredibly rewarding. It's the _one_ area of expertise that I don't yet have that has been preventing me from solo-developing a 3D game engine.
It takes five minutes of trawling through the videos on the GDC Vault to see all of the clever and interesting ways modern graphics engineers are eking every bit of performance out of modern hardware. Is it as clever or innovative as Carmack's fast inverse square root? I don't know. I'm not sure how to compare those things. But there is still plenty of room for that flavor of work for those that are interested.
JC was a bit of an anomaly but also his image is mostly coming from players and journalists. Developers struggled to use the later id software engines (partly why UE won that war).
You don’t need to be JC to earn a decent living as a graphics/game programmer.
I think the people that go into this field today (and for a while now) probably do it for the love of it, not the pay or widespread fame of doing something extraordinary in the field. Not that you can't have it all, but not being some legend I, well, I think that's a strange reason for someone already interested in game dev not to step into the field?
You can still read a bunch of papers and be first to market using exotic tech. The main issue right now is that games are so incredibly high budget and the bar is so high that you really need to stand out in many ways.
We see folks posting photo real, Gaussian splat FPS maps here every now and then but without also innovating on gameplay its just a tech demo. Those don't cut it these days.
Old 3D engine guy here. I highly encourage folks to make a 3D engine for fun and learning. Shipping a game with it would be a cherry on top. Come join us in r/graphicsprograming, r/gameenginedevs and the graphics programming discord.
Thanks. I have 3 days of vacation ahead so will use the time to sort out the math first. Code shouldn’t be too hard for a very simple 3d demo.
I tried my hand on hand a while ago and found out I couldn’t make out how many pixels to draw, say, a line in the 3d world. It involves a transformation to the world and another transformation to the camera, so I couldn’t make it out without any study.
This is probably very trivial so hopefully 3 days is good enough.
Seems like a lot of people work for a long time perfecting their special flavor of ice cream and never quite get to the cherry on top.
A lot to be learned from building a 3D engine, no doubt, but anecdotally the chances that it will lead a working game that anyone wants to play seem low. That's not a bad thing, unless they tell themselves they are going to ship a game any day now, just as soon as they do X, then Y, then Z, ...
It's also a great way to not become the next "graphics programming legend" --I think a fast-moving field with lots of new developments is actually an exciting place to be a pro.
Where is the "John Carmack" of ML? Where is the John Carmack of physics? This hero worship crap needs to be left in the past. There isn't a singular active researcher you can point to and say "this person has made the field what it is today". There are very influential papers, but they all have multiple contributors. Is that really a valid reason to not engage in a particular area of research or engineering?
And who cares anyway? No matter what you choose to do with your time, chances are that you will not have that much of an impact on your chosen discipline. You should choose how to spend your time based on whether an activity genuinely interests you, not on whether you think it would be easy to get recognition.
Physics is a weird one to bring up, because even compared to other fields, it's one where breakthroughs are frequently the result of relatively singular genius. Newton, Faraday, Planck, Einstein, their discoveries were generally not incremental progress along existing lines of inquiry like most physics research is, they made pretty radical changes to our understanding of the world writ large.
In comparison, Carmack is grossly overhyped. He's like the Feynman of CS: A significant contributor to relatively young field, and a pretty influential communicator, but their contributions were moreso being the first to make a certain type of incremental progress than a paradigm shift.
No, that is exactly the reason I am bringing up physics. There used to be a time when a singular person could make an outsized impact. In the recent past though, this has not been the case: significant breakthroughs are usually the result of coordinated effort of many individuals. Is that really a valid reason to not do physics?
now, if you said "don't get into it because your primary employment prospects would be games or film industry, which are known to be less than stellar towards their workers" - that would be a different story.
Somewhat surprising there is no mention of basic design principles, or understanding the quirks of human perception. My brother was a production artist for some well-known computer games in the '90s-'00s, and continually complained about programmers and managers with zero visual sense, or curiosity about understanding the artists' side.
Graphics aren't my specialty, but as a musician, sound designer and producer, by far the most effective/influential audio DSP coders I'm aware of understand the basics of music, the physics/acoustics of sounds, and the gotchas at the interface between discrete digital processes and how we perceive and interpret stimuli.
I was a technical artist for a series of feature films during the early '00s. At a good studio they'll have art and design classes for the tech origin staff and scripting and bash classes for the art origin staff. I was both, and that was a ton of fun.
Any suggestion for paths into tech art? I'm very strong in traditional media, I know my way around photoshop & blender very well[0] and I've self-studied programming to a level where I can read lower-level (c/c++) code and know what it's doing. I even got a PR merged into blender once!
But I have no industry connection and my public portfolio is mostly charcoal and oil. The company that flew my drone animations is small & didn't get good video of them (there's a cellphone video or two from the audience, but that's not very good for a showreel). I've been thinking of just getting some good footage of a field & using blender to render & composite the designs, but doing that well will be time consuming and I feel like I might be better off doing something else.
Any advice on breaking in?
[0] I made a small blender workflow & add-on before AI to coordinate droneshow animations that I was selling to a small company, used renderdoc to insert gl.readcolors into the renderloop in a very ugly so I could get the benefit of the shader engine, which no commercial drone-animation software could do at the time. Almost worked for a bigger drone company but the contract was untenable.
Exactly, Technical Artist is a distinct position that normally bridges the gap between pure programmers and artists and their needs. All TAs I've ever worked with had this incredible skill of knowing exactly what tech thing they need to achieve the outcome that the artists want.
Good Technical Artists are one of the most sought after professions in game dev. But it's also an annoyingly broad role that means different specific things at different places. The one common trait is being able to bridge the gap between art and code in a way that makes both parties happy.
This applies outside of creative industries too. I've seen my fair share of B2B/enterprise software where its clear the vendor has no clue how the industry they are selling to works, or how the users of that software think.
AI changed the calculus a bit (or at least, it has the potential to) but I think that was a huge part of the whole "learn to code" movement in the mid 2000s, to start treating software development as a "feature, not a product" of existing experts in their field so that the people most familiar with their domain are actually the ones making the software instead of having to translate the requirements down to a dev team.
Think more code monkeys for enterprise software consultancies, like Accenture, Tata, IBM Global Services, etc.
They needed warm bodies for their projects, as the usual source of manpower was grinding leetcode to work on bigtech at salaries that would make an accenture business type vomit in disgust.
(author of the article)
100% agree. As others have said, a good graphics programmer works with tech artists and artists. Frankly, graphics programming is largely a role of service to enable those people to do what they want to do, or help create what they envision.
People mentioned Inigo Quilez as an example of a graphics programmer who is also an artist. He is a power house and a unicorn.
I personally like playing music / programming audio more, which is a good ground for learning DSP things - useful when for instance, you want to push your rendering noise into the high frequencies, so a low pass filter is more effective at denoising.
I had some difficulties making sense of _color_ in context of graphics programming, especially transfer functions (sometimes misleadingly called tone mapping).
Color is so difficult. That's a good article. A graphics programmer should absolutely have an understanding of color. It's getting really hard now that games also implement HDR features, which few can understand. Great video on the problems here:
Feels like we try to turn anything we do into a career or job, especially with the odd ML angle. How about you "do graphics programming" instead of "being a graphics programmer"? Like start doing simple stuff until it clicks and you see it for being logistics to the GPU, then you can layer on top all the crazy concepts. Its like a small mountain you climb and suddenly everything clicks and you think like "oh my"... the possibilities and things to experiment with...
I don't think the wording implies a career or job. It's more implying an identity. "I'm a rock climber", "I'm a gamer", "I'm an artist", "I'm a mother", "I'm a father", "I'm a gym bro", "I'm a graphics programmer". None of these necessarily imply career or job, though they do tend to imply more than just a passing, casual involvement.
I created and still maintain A-Frame (aframe.io). It’s been a gentle gateway to learn 3D graphics for a decade. Cool community if I can say so ha ha. Web is a great way to share stuff as you learn, collect feedback and get visibility. Many cases in the community of people that ended up doing 3d graphics professionally.
Wow, I wrote my master's thesis using A-Frame!
Honestly, I'd love to give you my deepest gratitude for what you did with A-frame. I wasn't a programmer at the time and had very little experience but A-Frame helped me realise my idea in a really intuitive way. I occasionally look back at the repo and cringe from how bad my code was back then but if it wasn't for that project I doubt I would be where I am today.
Thank you.
Start with just <a-box> and <a-sky>, add some animations, then add some community components if it's not enough. Still not enough then modify via ThreeJS, all the way to shaders. A-Frame is amazing so thanks for creating and maintaining it!
I would say being a long-time user of Photoshop and Blender helps a lot. It's not a main tool, but supplemental. Maybe AI will take over some of this though.
Why outsource my learning to Al? The whole point is the joy of the process. I could easily take a photo of a scene (since the inception of photography) instead of learning to paint it, but I would gain no skills through that. People still paint. I'm just tired, boss... I yearn for a past when we didn't have to end every conversation with a disclaimer about Al taking over.
As a kid I wanted to make games when I got older, I always saw learning to program as a means to that end.
It wasn’t until I was deep into my career that I started developing all these preferences and ego and suddenly caring about the craft of the craft - specializing in work I never imagined spending so much time and energy on, career aspects I never meant to work into my personal identity.
Part of me feels a huge sense of relief with LLMs and image gen - because finally I don’t have to be the maniac anymore! The machine can be the machine again, I don’t have to sit at an IDE for 13 hours grinding out tedium.
Now I can make games, now I can do art.
In that sense it’s a lot like the early arts and literature movements - a renaissance - where the printing press, canvas, international finance, and the enabling of the rapid production of ideas paid off tremendously in the following decades and centuries.
We’ll get great films, games, stories, and research because of this stuff. And then great innovation - stuff we could not do without it at unimaginable scales.
>We’ll get great films, games, stories, and research because of this stuff.
If you were the kind of person who could create great art, then you would have found a way to make that art happen before LLMs were made.
Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it's true. Too many people are convinced that an AI is suddenly going to skyrocket them from the ground floor to the ceiling of a craft. It won't.
Accept that there are no shortcuts to mastery. Accept that ideas are cheap, and execution is what matters. Accept that a large portion of people find it repugnant to engage with generative art.
trigonometry->Coordinate Geometry -> Linear Algebra applied to graphics
Once you have that intuition, the rest is all figuring out the stages of the graphics pipeline and the frameworks like opengl and their constituent data structures.
My only additions to the article would be to study your probability/statistics (can't do efficient path tracing without it) and get comfortable with integrals, especially integrals on a sphere (physically based rendering will be a lot easier to understand).
The most useful resources I've found for graphics are scratchapixel, UC Davis' graphics lectures, songho's articles, and Essential Math for Games and Interactive Applications. I highly recommend you read this last resource front to back. Seriously, its the best freaking math reference for graphics out there.
But knowing theory is not sufficient. You also need to get your hands dirty by writing code: learn how to build a software rasterizer (check out Tiny renderer) and a ray tracer (Ray Tracing in One Weekend series). Preferably in a language like C++. Then move onto APIs. I recommend you learn OpenGL, but if you're okay with being confused as all hell try Vulkan. Or WebGPU if you're a hipster (/s).
Finally, try to build some stuff. A simple engine. A non-trivial technique. A game. Whatever.
Unfortunately, you're unlikely to get hired working as a rendering engineer without having serious connections, or by having adjacent experience in the industry. Doubly so now that everyone is convinced junior engineers are unnecessary.
Thank you! I started recently as a greybeard engineer, and I found SDL3 GPU to be modern enough yet not too low level for a newbie compared to Vulkan. SDL in general is a fantastic framework. And if you use it from Odin, the dev experience is so smooth and enjoyable as everything you need to create graphical applications is builtin.
I will definitely check out Essential Math for Games and Interactive Applications, I feel I need some solid understanding of theory to see how it all fits together.
Do you want to make games, or do 3D engine programming?
If you want to make games, use an existing engine. Unreal Engine, Unity, Godot, and Bevy are good choices. You'll learn the higher level issues of graphics, not how to push pixels around. The real problem is making it fun.
If you want to do 3D engine programming, be aware that there are too many bad game engines. In Rust land, where I am, there are three failed renderers, one unfinished one, and the one inside the Bevy engine. Those are the major projects. There are many other "I'm going to build a game engine" projects. Building a game engine takes about two years to get to the My First Renderer point. Getting to big, highly detailed, dynamic scenes is a much bigger job. Be aware of the scale difference between the first demo and a useful engine.
If you want a job, be aware that the game industry sucks. Pay is lousy, hours are lousy, jobs end when the project is completed, and, like Hollywood, there's an army of wannabees wanting in. Also, right now, because of the collapse of the Metaverse thing, there's a glut of experienced people.
Then there's mobile. Everything is a cram job. Not enough screen, not enough compute, not enough GPU, not enough battery.
This is why most indy games now are 2D. That's do-able. Often in HTML/JavaScript.
Agree with almost all of that. Unless you are targeting some obscure or old platform, I don't even know how you'd justify trying to write a 3D engine from scratch in 2026, except as a fun learning experience.
Also, think about tooling. Last time I wrote an engine from scratch, the tooling to support it probably took way more time than the engine did.
AI changes this a lot.
You can realistically get a featured 3d engine+editor up and running in a couple week with AI, working solo. Probably better than what Godot or even Unity gives you. Also AI is very good at editor/tooling stuff, I've even found it getting better at graphics programming stuff, just telling it to 1-shot implementing gpu occlusion culling, ddgi probes, taa, etc. type of features. Also for stuff like animation, I just told my AI "clone Unreal's animation blueprints" and I have a pretty featured animation system now. "clone Unity's particle system" and it 1-shots it in an hour with the runtime and nice editor tools. With the advantage being you can just implement exactly what you need.
Two years? Why does it take two years?
Unless you’ve written one before, it’s the natural learning curve.
You can always generate one using LLM if you don’t care about how it actually works.
Today, I would not recommend anybody to go into graphics programming:
I started in 2001, when NVidias first Geforce 1 ("the Gigatexl shadercard") was first announced: The field developed since then with so much speed and innovations, it blows my mind of. Compared to what we could do 25years ago, the tech today is just fu*ing impressive.
Though, with this impressiveness comes a big "but": The space is developing at a speed which is really really scary. Nvidia came up with AI-based effects to influence scene & assets on their own - back then, we wouldnt have even thought about that this will be possible some day in realtime.
I do not know if its possible at all to be a "decent pro" in this field now - let me use other words: "Where is todays Jon Carmack?" - he was famous for squeezing everything out of the hardware, using ideas very hidden in the community etc. - today, there is not any competitive moat for people like him (he actually lives on his legacy), and that is because the field is so vast and evolving so fast that there is no chance to become the next one
I really dislike people that got into a thing and then try to discourage others. “Don’t be like me! I wasted my entire life” which is bullshit from a jaded person that lost passion. Telling people to stay away from graphics programming is not how to entice tomorrow’s John Carmack.
So here’s another perspective. If all you have done is web apps and Kubernetes, for example, do get into graphics programming. The feedback cycle is exhilarating, and you get to appreciate how mind boggingly fast your average computer is. You’ll get to optimize things that are ultimately unimportant because you have never learned how quick things are at the low level. There are a ton of resources and the maths is not too bad. You might find that 3D modeling is a creative outlet you didn’t know you needed. Even if completely inapplicable to your day job, you’ll find new ways to appreciate the art of programming computers, and might just decide to never touch Kubernetes again and spend the next 5 years writing your own game engine in your spare time. There are a lot of crazy people like that, and the community of hobbyists that are not ground down by life and game dev as a career is larger than you’d think. The Graphics Programming discord is a welcoming place if you want to check it out.
Go for it!
> Don’t be like me! I wasted my entire life
That's not the argument being made here. The field is changing. I had a good career in graphics, my life wasn't wasted at all. That doesn't mean a college student would have the same experience starting today.
Well, of course not, unless you are claiming that a future career in graphics is a bad idea, and there is no way you could say that with any reasonable certainty, I do not get the argument at all.
The field is always changing. You could find people in the 80s saying ‘I had a good career in graphics, a college student would not have the same experience starting today’
100% this. My dad told me not to get into it because of the web (he was a C guy) and instead I went head first into it AND did graphics programming (using C#, ewwww) just for the fun of it. Never discourage from someone wanting to learn, discourage the ego that thinks we need another John Carmack.
Getting into a field that is changing is the best time to get into that field. The playing field gets equalized and you have more opportunity to be established as a strong expert.
That is not a universal because the incumbents may hold the institutional reigns. See Academy for a counter example.
Seems like a great field to get into if you can make it to the top 5-10% skillset.
The rapid advances, in a trend replicating throughout society, push out the middle in favor of the top.
Out of curiosity, which fields would you say are the best to just be mediocre in?
Nepo baby.
Joking (sort of).
I can't say I know of any in the fields I'm familiar with. I've watched tech get increasingly top-heavy since the covid hiring boom and bust, although it was already trending that way.
There are a lot of fields dominated by boomers on the verge of retirement that are the safest bet for people who want to be good and make a good living but don't care to be extraordinary.
I've heard that from arborists, water treatment specialists, actuaries, a few others.
Has tech really gotten more top heavy?
I feel more like people kept flooding into the middle and bottom, and companies that used to focus on top talent got watered down with those middle and bottom types.
A lot of the people getting laid off from Google and Meta would not have been hired at all in those places 15 years ago, for example.
Nobody who has ambitions of being the top of their field in engineering wants to be a water treatment specialists, arborist or actuary (maybe actuary if you're a stats nerd). What you're saying is go do something on the based on the potential for you to be professionally successful.. What about people doing things they love?
I hate these people telling people who love to do a certain thing that they should just become a plumber or an electrician. Not everything is about spending your life to make as much pieces of paper the govt tells you are worth something.
I'd rather be in poverty working with computers everyday and doing what I love than make 10k a month being a plumber. I actually can't stand you people.
The question I answered was:
Which fields would you say are the best to just be mediocre in
> I actually can't stand you people.
Unnecessary. People who want a basic middle class existence are not greedy and should not receive disdain. Many have responsibilities to their elders or others, have kids or want them, etc. so avowed poverty is not realistic.
Especially when bohemian poverty is an increasingly vanishing option on a practical level.
I mean, there's other problems with OPs argument.
For example, "there's no chance to become the next one" implies it's only worth it to do something if you can become the absolute best person in the field.
It's a big world. Most of us will not be the very best at what we do. There are millions of fun games that were not written by John Carmack.
Yeah, like I imagine they mean that as a career it is competitive and demanding while having few openings so you shouldn’t stake your education and future on it, but I’m with you. This is something I really want to learn well enough to contribute the world.
Another staple of HN I abhor is “don’t bother learning this cool thing unless an official IQ test says you are over 150.”
I live after the motto of "always disregard the naysayers." If someone tells you a thing is a bad idea, you can safely ignore their advice.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
— George Bernard Shaw
Chill down. It's just someone who has a lot of experience in the field making an analysis of the current landscape of the career, using their own as an example.
> Telling people to stay away from graphics programming is not how to entice tomorrow’s John Carmack.
John Carmack was one of the _first_ graphics programmer to ever exist. The next John Carmack can't be in the same field. The same way we can't expect the next Beatles to be playing rock music. :)
Isn't it mostly shaders programming nowadays?
Modern APIs make synchronization and resource management a lot more complex. Used correctly they result in better performance; used incorrectly...
That being said, "nowadays" most studios just throw shit at UE5 and get it over with. It's obvious from how terrible many games run that they don't have a rendering engineer on the payroll.
That sounds nice, but we need to make money and there aren't alot of opportunities. I'd love to get away from web and infra nonsense but,in The right domain id even do it for a pay cut. Hobby work won't get you a job
"These annoying, jaded horse-drawn cart builders, cautioning youngsters from getting into the field in 1908."
> I really dislike people that got into a thing and then try to discourage others. “Don’t be like me! I wasted my entire life” which is bullshit from a jaded person that lost passion. Telling people to stay away from graphics programming is not how to entice tomorrow’s John Carmack.
Given that almost everyone who wants to be a "graphics programmer" is also somehow gaming industry adjacent, it is extremely fair to ward them off from the folly. I do the same for anyone wishing to do "VLSI hardware engineering." If you have the skill to do either of those, you almost CERTAINLY have the skill to do something else that is almost as interesting and not saddled by garbage employers.
The primary problem with being a "graphics programmer" beyond a tyro is that the biggest consumer of graphics programmers is the game industry which is a notoriously shitty and wretched industry. Every ... single ... employer. So, from the point of view of future potential, "graphics programmer" has very little upside over pretty much ANY other type of programmers.
Second, "learning graphics programming" is like "learning phone programming", you spend more time fighting godawful software infrastructure more than you do actual programming. AI actually kind of helps this, but it doesn't completely remove the fact that 80% of your knowledge has a half-life of 18-24 months.
Finally, saying "I want to learn graphics programming" is like saying "I want to learn engineering." What "graphics programmer" means is vastly underspecified. 3D game rendering and 3D/2D CAD rendering and 2D vector rendering are completely different skillsets. GPUs are great at the first and kinda okay at the second and kinda lousy at the third. Which kind of "graphics programmer" are you even going to be?
> Second, "learning graphics programming" is like "learning phone programming", you spend more time fighting godawful software infrastructure more than you do actual programming. AI actually kind of helps this, but it doesn't completely remove the fact that 80% of your knowledge has a half-life of 18-24 months.
What kind of knowledge are you talking about here? learnopengl.com is still relevant today for its technical knowledge of fundamental graphics techniques, in spite of OpenGL itself slowly dying. The knowledge itself is overwhelmingly transferable to whatever modern graphics API you’re using.
With mobile development, I can see that you’re mostly learning surface level tools and APIs, which get changed frequently as a new iOS version comes out. But with graphics it’s actually the opposite — most large features come with new hardware, and because most of your customers are generally using older hardware, you can’t even use those new features until the majority of users have upgraded and support it (usually with a new console generation).
Regardless of what you think of the games industry, graphics programmers are highly in demand and paid relatively very well. It’s hard and there’s a lot of surface area to cover to really be excellent, but the knowledge is relevant, longstanding, and rewarding IMO.
> 3D game rendering and 3D/2D CAD rendering and 2D vector rendering are completely different skillsets.
Actually, no. Autodesk acquired Alias, and got the Maya animation system, in 2005. Soon after, the CAD tools had cinematic quality output. The architectural people loved this - good looking, accurate architectural renders came out. They especially liked that lighting worked, and you could use the CAD system to place real-world light fixtures.
> Which kind of "graphics programmer" are you even going to be?
If one follows OP's advice, none at all.
> it is extremely fair to ward them off from the folly
I completely disagree with this. It is a damaging and unproductive attitude to teach beginners and young people. Who are you to say their future career prospect is a folly? The only thing that defines the talents of tomorrow is that they have ignored such advice and then pushed forward the state of the art in ways you couldn't even imagine. This is how progress works.
> Who are you to say their future career prospect is a folly?
Someone who watched an industry chew up and spit out far too many young people. That's who and that's why I'm qualified.
> The only thing that defines the talents of tomorrow is that they have ignored such advice and then pushed forward the state of the art in ways you couldn't even imagine. This is how progress works.
You would encourage an individual to walk a path that is 90%(95%/99%) likely to damage their life horribly in the name of "progress"? Really? That's ... more than a little inhumane.
Would you encourage someone who likes writing to be a "journalist" right now? I should hope not. I wouldn't tell them to not write, but I sure would try to find a better way to channel that skill.
Or perhaps, if we substituted "pro basketball player" for "graphics programming" perhaps you could see the folly? Although, at least the individual playing basketball would gain the immediate benefits of being quite fit while the graphics programmer would enjoy no such side benefit.
Computer graphics is intrinsically interesting and rewarding. It sits at the intersection of several important fields, from computer science to mathematics to theoretical physics to low-level programming.
Maybe steering away from it is good advice for someone who's looking for a career transition but doesn't care about what they're actually doing. But that's not a good way to go through life; my advice to such a person would be to follow what they find interesting and valuable, and constantly challenge themselves to learn new things. Then deciding whether or not to learn computer graphics is relatively straightforward and it will be a net positive for the right kind of person. Even if they don't make it a career, the skills transfer well to many other areas.
Graphics programming has this one very, very useful aspect, exponentially more valuable today: the matrix algebra pipelines, and then the requirement to 'think in matrix transforms' is a wonderful and visually engaging way to get your foundation for machine learning math.
I don't really see this with modern graphics programming, but I was highly amused that my 1980s-1990s graphics skills (in particular, coordinate transform math) were very useful when I started working in robotics in the 2010s-2020s (because forward and inverse kinematics are exactly the same thing as 2d/3d projections.)
The trick there is that they both have related physical analogs, and machine learning math doesn't really (in that while you can visualize them spatially, it doesn't seem to help solve any problems in that space.)
This is like saying being a cashier prepares you for a job in high-finance because both involve arithmetic on dollars and cents.
I've been in ML for ~5 years in multiple FAANGs and I have never seen a rotation matrix.
A rotation matrix is but one of dozens and dozens of different types of basic transforms. It gets really fun with jacobian 12x12 matrix operations, and free form deformations. Which maps to ML far better than most imagine.
I mainly learned linear algebra via hands-on 3D graphics, and have a hard time thinking about a matrix as anything other than 4x4 and representing a linear transform...
How much do you even think about explicit matrix math when doing high-level ML?
3D graphics is so much more than the basic transforms. Add in all the deformation systems blending together, and those often being physics driven off the animation. You all have seen modern VFX, right? That is not basic 4x4 transforms.
I’ve not done high level ML, but I’ve done introductory ML and the truth is while the input space and the output space can have N and M dimensions, there’s not a lot of constraints involved. The matrix there are more randoms.
The whole ML field is basically about starting from random points and trying to find useful shapes and constraints. Basically like trying to get object likeness in clouds
TBF, I bet any graphics programmer would be a boon for a ML shop for their GPU/performance optimization knowledge alone.
Doesn’t RoPE use 2D rotation matrices ?
congrats you've found literally the only example ("the exception that proves the rule").
Your fixation on the rotation matrix == 3D graphics is not right
SVD, and PCA are also examples.
there is absolutely no sense in which the SVD/PCA decomposition is just a rotation matrix. you should probably review your linear algebra textbook (hint: scaling is extremely important).
PCA is an orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix, so like all orthogonal transformations, it’s _literally a rotation_ in N-dimensional space.
SVD is more complex but ultimately it’s just another useful decomposition of a matrix.
I’m not sure why you’re both negative and dismissive. Transformation matrices in graphics are a good and approachable way to get used to linear transformations, which turn out to be useful pretty much everywhere.
Whether or not that helps you with ML depends more on what you’re doing in ML. FAANG doesn’t have a monopoly on ML or on interesting work in ML.
> PCA is an orthogonal transformation of the covariance matrix
Yes you're now the second person the literally repeat the same thing I've already stated extremely clearly and succinctly: PCA is not just rotation (hint: you also need to understand covariance).
> I’m not sure why you’re both negative and dismissive. Transformation matrices in graphics are a good and approachable way to get used to linear transformations, which turn out to be useful pretty much everywhere.
I've already literally drawn the analogy/metaphor that I've drawn: if you think 2d/3d rotation matrices as they are used in graphics is any kind of introduction to the matrices in ML (modeling linear transformations or otherwise) then you're probably the type of person that believes that cash registers any kind of introduction to finance.
My point is not that hard to understand. Graphics in no way, way, shape, or form prepares you for ML. I don't understand why this is so controversial.
> My point is not that hard to understand.
Have you done any serious graphics programming? Even at the OpenGL 1.x level? What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense.
Just because you’re rotating and translating things in 3-space doesn’t negate that you have a stack of transforms that relate a point in world space to one on screen space and you want to be able to project from one to the other.
Nor does it make it any easier when you need to think about how to stack transforms to achieve effects like rendering a mirror.
I honed a lot of useful practical skill with linear algebra trying to get graphics to do what I wanted. And I say this as someone who’s spent the bulk of my career using linear algebra in the context of quantum mechanics, physical simulation, and ML-adjacent areas.
> negate that you have a stack of transforms that relate a point in world space to one on screen space and you want to be able to project from one to the other.
no it doesn't "negate", it's all completely orthogonal (pun) or irrelevant. like for real just please take a look at
https://docs.pytorch.org/docs/2.12/nn.html
and tell me which operators you're imagining have any resemblance with typical graphics linear algebra.
like when you people make such claims do you really have anything concrete in mind or just hype?
SVD is the decomposition of a matrix into two rotation matrices and a scaling matrix, by definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_value_decomposition
i don't understand who is having trouble reading the dialogue here you or i;
> there is absolutely no sense in which the SVD/PCA decomposition is just a rotation matrix... (hint: scaling is extremely important)
...
> SVD is the decomposition of a matrix into two rotation matrices and a scaling matrix, by definition:
yes that's exactly what i was implying when i said SVD more than just rotation, scaling is also important.
my point, which is my same original point, is that if you think learning about rotation/euler matrices is going to prepare you in any way, shape, or form for ML (vis-a-vis SVD/PCA or RoPE or anything else) you're in for a very rude awakening.
You opened with this:
> I've been in ML for ~5 years in multiple FAANGs and I have never seen a rotation matrix.
Presumably you've used SVD, but you've never seen a rotation matrix. So something is cooked.
Maybe corollary: that FAANG job wasn't that interesting.
... and I have been both situations for longer and have seen tons and tons of them (*)... So?
Not so hypotheticals -- Heck the inputs that you want labelled could be rotation matrices. The desired output could be a rotation matrix. Generating more convenient features could be via a rotation matrix. Dimensionality reduction could be through a reduction matrix. Sparsity could be encouraged by proper use of rotation matrices. Shows up if you want to build in group theoretic invariance in your predictive model.
(*) If you consider Householders then even more
Is the linear algebra of machine learning more complicated than that of graphics?
I'm a data scientist and not a graphics programmer, but my guess is that it's just abstracted away more. If you're using ML/DL libraries, you're mostly just calling APIs that handle the linear algebra and calculus for you. Unless you're actively contributing to those libraries, you likely don't ever need to "touch" any of the underlying operations. Up to a point, it's useful to understand how things work under the hood, but where that point is kinda depends on your job. For instance, I could write code to do 'naive' matrix multiplication, but I couldn't, like, contribute to BLAS.
i think so
How about people like Inigo Quilez? I'd say they're still quite high profile in today's landscape. And the main thing is I think there's just way more people in the field overall today too, not everyone can be famous! It's totally fine to not be as high profile as literally one of the most well known people in a field, it's fine to just do it because you enjoy it! The math and art of graphics (and games in general) programming is beautiful in and of itself.
> "Where is todays Jon Carmack?" - he was famous for squeezing everything out of the hardware,
Spinning that another way, there's Bill Gates (not sure of the authenticity though) saying something along the lines of why would he pay to spend that kind of time when CPUs/RAM/HDDs are getting faster/cheaper; users can just upgrade. If we determine which method is more successful based on their worth...
Right. Most of the clever stuff that Carmack is famous for moved from software into hardware.
By argument about not getting into graphics programming is different -- are 3D engines, with their vertices and textures, going to even exist a few years from now? Or will everything be rendered directly by an AI world model? How much code will a game contain, or will it simply exist in a series of cleverly-worded prompts?
Very interesting insights, thanks for this.
Indeed "be a graphics programmer" nowadays sounds like "be an assembly programmer".
A kind of time waster for a nerd with too much time in their hands.
Couldn't disagree more. I've only recently started digging into graphics programming and I've found it incredibly rewarding. It's the _one_ area of expertise that I don't yet have that has been preventing me from solo-developing a 3D game engine.
It takes five minutes of trawling through the videos on the GDC Vault to see all of the clever and interesting ways modern graphics engineers are eking every bit of performance out of modern hardware. Is it as clever or innovative as Carmack's fast inverse square root? I don't know. I'm not sure how to compare those things. But there is still plenty of room for that flavor of work for those that are interested.
Well, then: "merry Christmas" so to say: https://flipcode.com/archives/
This is brilliant. Thanks!
JC was a bit of an anomaly but also his image is mostly coming from players and journalists. Developers struggled to use the later id software engines (partly why UE won that war).
You don’t need to be JC to earn a decent living as a graphics/game programmer.
I think the people that go into this field today (and for a while now) probably do it for the love of it, not the pay or widespread fame of doing something extraordinary in the field. Not that you can't have it all, but not being some legend I, well, I think that's a strange reason for someone already interested in game dev not to step into the field?
You can still read a bunch of papers and be first to market using exotic tech. The main issue right now is that games are so incredibly high budget and the bar is so high that you really need to stand out in many ways.
We see folks posting photo real, Gaussian splat FPS maps here every now and then but without also innovating on gameplay its just a tech demo. Those don't cut it these days.
What if I just want to program some rendering engine for a game that looks like DOOM 3 and its predecessors? I think that’s still quite doable?
Old 3D engine guy here. I highly encourage folks to make a 3D engine for fun and learning. Shipping a game with it would be a cherry on top. Come join us in r/graphicsprograming, r/gameenginedevs and the graphics programming discord.
Thanks. I have 3 days of vacation ahead so will use the time to sort out the math first. Code shouldn’t be too hard for a very simple 3d demo.
I tried my hand on hand a while ago and found out I couldn’t make out how many pixels to draw, say, a line in the 3d world. It involves a transformation to the world and another transformation to the camera, so I couldn’t make it out without any study.
This is probably very trivial so hopefully 3 days is good enough.
Seems like a lot of people work for a long time perfecting their special flavor of ice cream and never quite get to the cherry on top.
A lot to be learned from building a 3D engine, no doubt, but anecdotally the chances that it will lead a working game that anyone wants to play seem low. That's not a bad thing, unless they tell themselves they are going to ship a game any day now, just as soon as they do X, then Y, then Z, ...
Huh? Just because you're not going to become the next graphics programming legend you think it's not worth getting into graphics programming at all?
It's also a great way to not become the next "graphics programming legend" --I think a fast-moving field with lots of new developments is actually an exciting place to be a pro.
The moment you realize most people's thinking is no better than a hallucinating LLM :)
There is more to graphics than AAA games or blockbuster movies.
Ridiculous justification.
"Where is todays Jon Carmack?"
Where is the "John Carmack" of ML? Where is the John Carmack of physics? This hero worship crap needs to be left in the past. There isn't a singular active researcher you can point to and say "this person has made the field what it is today". There are very influential papers, but they all have multiple contributors. Is that really a valid reason to not engage in a particular area of research or engineering?
And who cares anyway? No matter what you choose to do with your time, chances are that you will not have that much of an impact on your chosen discipline. You should choose how to spend your time based on whether an activity genuinely interests you, not on whether you think it would be easy to get recognition.
Physics is a weird one to bring up, because even compared to other fields, it's one where breakthroughs are frequently the result of relatively singular genius. Newton, Faraday, Planck, Einstein, their discoveries were generally not incremental progress along existing lines of inquiry like most physics research is, they made pretty radical changes to our understanding of the world writ large.
In comparison, Carmack is grossly overhyped. He's like the Feynman of CS: A significant contributor to relatively young field, and a pretty influential communicator, but their contributions were moreso being the first to make a certain type of incremental progress than a paradigm shift.
No, that is exactly the reason I am bringing up physics. There used to be a time when a singular person could make an outsized impact. In the recent past though, this has not been the case: significant breakthroughs are usually the result of coordinated effort of many individuals. Is that really a valid reason to not do physics?
now, if you said "don't get into it because your primary employment prospects would be games or film industry, which are known to be less than stellar towards their workers" - that would be a different story.
Boooooooo
Keep learning yung ones
Fabrice Bellard.
If anyone needs a quick tutorial on linear algebra, you can check out this printabale four pager that I wrote: https://minireference.com/static/tutorials/linear_algebra_in...
I also have some notebooks with SymPy code examples here: https://github.com/minireference/noBSLAnotebooks
Good Books :)
Somewhat surprising there is no mention of basic design principles, or understanding the quirks of human perception. My brother was a production artist for some well-known computer games in the '90s-'00s, and continually complained about programmers and managers with zero visual sense, or curiosity about understanding the artists' side.
Graphics aren't my specialty, but as a musician, sound designer and producer, by far the most effective/influential audio DSP coders I'm aware of understand the basics of music, the physics/acoustics of sounds, and the gotchas at the interface between discrete digital processes and how we perceive and interpret stimuli.
There’s a separate role that is more along the lines of what you’re saying, called a Technical Artist (that’s what I do)
I think graphics programmers benefit from having an artistic mindset, but they usually work so low level that it isn’t necessary to be successful.
I was a technical artist for a series of feature films during the early '00s. At a good studio they'll have art and design classes for the tech origin staff and scripting and bash classes for the art origin staff. I was both, and that was a ton of fun.
Any suggestion for paths into tech art? I'm very strong in traditional media, I know my way around photoshop & blender very well[0] and I've self-studied programming to a level where I can read lower-level (c/c++) code and know what it's doing. I even got a PR merged into blender once!
But I have no industry connection and my public portfolio is mostly charcoal and oil. The company that flew my drone animations is small & didn't get good video of them (there's a cellphone video or two from the audience, but that's not very good for a showreel). I've been thinking of just getting some good footage of a field & using blender to render & composite the designs, but doing that well will be time consuming and I feel like I might be better off doing something else.
Any advice on breaking in?
[0] I made a small blender workflow & add-on before AI to coordinate droneshow animations that I was selling to a small company, used renderdoc to insert gl.readcolors into the renderloop in a very ugly so I could get the benefit of the shader engine, which no commercial drone-animation software could do at the time. Almost worked for a bigger drone company but the contract was untenable.
Exactly, Technical Artist is a distinct position that normally bridges the gap between pure programmers and artists and their needs. All TAs I've ever worked with had this incredible skill of knowing exactly what tech thing they need to achieve the outcome that the artists want.
Is this a viable field for employment?or did it collapse like alot of other digital art?
Good Technical Artists are one of the most sought after professions in game dev. But it's also an annoyingly broad role that means different specific things at different places. The one common trait is being able to bridge the gap between art and code in a way that makes both parties happy.
This applies outside of creative industries too. I've seen my fair share of B2B/enterprise software where its clear the vendor has no clue how the industry they are selling to works, or how the users of that software think.
AI changed the calculus a bit (or at least, it has the potential to) but I think that was a huge part of the whole "learn to code" movement in the mid 2000s, to start treating software development as a "feature, not a product" of existing experts in their field so that the people most familiar with their domain are actually the ones making the software instead of having to translate the requirements down to a dev team.
the learn to code movement was a psyop by big tech to get more javascript monkeys for cheap
I doubt most JavaScript monkeys would have got through their leet code style interview process ! :)
Think more code monkeys for enterprise software consultancies, like Accenture, Tata, IBM Global Services, etc.
They needed warm bodies for their projects, as the usual source of manpower was grinding leetcode to work on bigtech at salaries that would make an accenture business type vomit in disgust.
(author of the article) 100% agree. As others have said, a good graphics programmer works with tech artists and artists. Frankly, graphics programming is largely a role of service to enable those people to do what they want to do, or help create what they envision. People mentioned Inigo Quilez as an example of a graphics programmer who is also an artist. He is a power house and a unicorn. I personally like playing music / programming audio more, which is a good ground for learning DSP things - useful when for instance, you want to push your rendering noise into the high frequencies, so a low pass filter is more effective at denoising.
I see this all the time with audio too. The amount of bits you need to reserve a
I had some difficulties making sense of _color_ in context of graphics programming, especially transfer functions (sometimes misleadingly called tone mapping).
Good article on color management in general, which has a great intersection with foundations needed for graphics programming: https://chrisbrejon.com/cg-cinematography/chapter-1-color-ma...
Color is so difficult. That's a good article. A graphics programmer should absolutely have an understanding of color. It's getting really hard now that games also implement HDR features, which few can understand. Great video on the problems here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hAVA6_Sczs
Feels like we try to turn anything we do into a career or job, especially with the odd ML angle. How about you "do graphics programming" instead of "being a graphics programmer"? Like start doing simple stuff until it clicks and you see it for being logistics to the GPU, then you can layer on top all the crazy concepts. Its like a small mountain you climb and suddenly everything clicks and you think like "oh my"... the possibilities and things to experiment with...
I don't think the wording implies a career or job. It's more implying an identity. "I'm a rock climber", "I'm a gamer", "I'm an artist", "I'm a mother", "I'm a father", "I'm a gym bro", "I'm a graphics programmer". None of these necessarily imply career or job, though they do tend to imply more than just a passing, casual involvement.
I created and still maintain A-Frame (aframe.io). It’s been a gentle gateway to learn 3D graphics for a decade. Cool community if I can say so ha ha. Web is a great way to share stuff as you learn, collect feedback and get visibility. Many cases in the community of people that ended up doing 3d graphics professionally.
Wow, I wrote my master's thesis using A-Frame! Honestly, I'd love to give you my deepest gratitude for what you did with A-frame. I wasn't a programmer at the time and had very little experience but A-Frame helped me realise my idea in a really intuitive way. I occasionally look back at the repo and cringe from how bad my code was back then but if it wasn't for that project I doubt I would be where I am today. Thank you.
Thanks so much! Really happy to hear. It makes all sweat, blood and tears of open source maintenance worth it.
Can definitely recommend it!
Start with just <a-box> and <a-sky>, add some animations, then add some community components if it's not enough. Still not enough then modify via ThreeJS, all the way to shaders. A-Frame is amazing so thanks for creating and maintaining it!
PS: Oh, and you can even do AR and VR with it.
I think that Khan Academy has a lot of graphics programmers that you might be interested in seeing. They use processing js. https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-programming/b...
This guy has some good art: https://www.khanacademy.org/profile/kaid_1019042693170894950...
And this person: https://www.khanacademy.org/profile/kaid_9428127706426004539...
unfortunately, khan academy has been deleting old accounts: https://kap-archive.bhavjit.com/view?p=6177161966469120
I’m not a graphics programmer but had alot of fun building a raycaster in C. Fun math and actually really simple relatively.
I’m going to revisit raycasting with a browser based raycaster from scratch.
I’m just finishing up a webgl + canvas game engine and game for a 2D top down grid strategy game first
1. Familiarity with all GL APIs, but deep focus on 1 or 2.
If you want to work with Windows, probably DirectX.
2. Make awesome shaders. Check this out: https://fragcoord.xyz
I would say being a long-time user of Photoshop and Blender helps a lot. It's not a main tool, but supplemental. Maybe AI will take over some of this though.
Hell, maybe that other stuff too, hahaha!
Why outsource my learning to Al? The whole point is the joy of the process. I could easily take a photo of a scene (since the inception of photography) instead of learning to paint it, but I would gain no skills through that. People still paint. I'm just tired, boss... I yearn for a past when we didn't have to end every conversation with a disclaimer about Al taking over.
Yeah depends what/why you wanna do.
As a kid I wanted to make games when I got older, I always saw learning to program as a means to that end.
It wasn’t until I was deep into my career that I started developing all these preferences and ego and suddenly caring about the craft of the craft - specializing in work I never imagined spending so much time and energy on, career aspects I never meant to work into my personal identity.
Part of me feels a huge sense of relief with LLMs and image gen - because finally I don’t have to be the maniac anymore! The machine can be the machine again, I don’t have to sit at an IDE for 13 hours grinding out tedium.
Now I can make games, now I can do art.
In that sense it’s a lot like the early arts and literature movements - a renaissance - where the printing press, canvas, international finance, and the enabling of the rapid production of ideas paid off tremendously in the following decades and centuries.
We’ll get great films, games, stories, and research because of this stuff. And then great innovation - stuff we could not do without it at unimaginable scales.
>We’ll get great films, games, stories, and research because of this stuff.
If you were the kind of person who could create great art, then you would have found a way to make that art happen before LLMs were made.
Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it's true. Too many people are convinced that an AI is suddenly going to skyrocket them from the ground floor to the ceiling of a craft. It won't.
Accept that there are no shortcuts to mastery. Accept that ideas are cheap, and execution is what matters. Accept that a large portion of people find it repugnant to engage with generative art.
For some reason, graphics is one of most popular topics for recreational programming.
trigonometry->Coordinate Geometry -> Linear Algebra applied to graphics
Once you have that intuition, the rest is all figuring out the stages of the graphics pipeline and the frameworks like opengl and their constituent data structures.
My only additions to the article would be to study your probability/statistics (can't do efficient path tracing without it) and get comfortable with integrals, especially integrals on a sphere (physically based rendering will be a lot easier to understand).
I'm a graphics programmer.
The most useful resources I've found for graphics are scratchapixel, UC Davis' graphics lectures, songho's articles, and Essential Math for Games and Interactive Applications. I highly recommend you read this last resource front to back. Seriously, its the best freaking math reference for graphics out there.
But knowing theory is not sufficient. You also need to get your hands dirty by writing code: learn how to build a software rasterizer (check out Tiny renderer) and a ray tracer (Ray Tracing in One Weekend series). Preferably in a language like C++. Then move onto APIs. I recommend you learn OpenGL, but if you're okay with being confused as all hell try Vulkan. Or WebGPU if you're a hipster (/s).
Finally, try to build some stuff. A simple engine. A non-trivial technique. A game. Whatever.
Unfortunately, you're unlikely to get hired working as a rendering engineer without having serious connections, or by having adjacent experience in the industry. Doubly so now that everyone is convinced junior engineers are unnecessary.
Thank you! I started recently as a greybeard engineer, and I found SDL3 GPU to be modern enough yet not too low level for a newbie compared to Vulkan. SDL in general is a fantastic framework. And if you use it from Odin, the dev experience is so smooth and enjoyable as everything you need to create graphical applications is builtin.
I will definitely check out Essential Math for Games and Interactive Applications, I feel I need some solid understanding of theory to see how it all fits together.
Immutability. Semantics.
Claude Code