I am attempting to create a reasonably interactive N-body simulation, with the novelty of being able to observe the simulation from the surface of one of the bodies. By this, I mean that I have some randomly placed 'stars' of very high masses with random velocities and 'planets' of smaller masses given initial circular velocities around these stars. I am then rendering this in real-time via OpenGL on Linux and DirectX11 on Windows.
My question is in regards to rendering the scene out, NOT the N-body simulation. I have a very efficient/accurate solver working now, and it can always be improved later without affecting the rendering.
The problem obviously arises that stars are obscenely far away from each other, thus the fragment shader is incapable of rendering distant stars as they are fractions of pixels in size. Using a logarithmic depth-buffer works fine for standing on a planet and looking at a moon and the host star, but I am really struggling on how to deal with the distant stars. I am not interested in 'faking' it, or rendering a star map centered on the player, as the whole point is to be able to view the simulation in real time. A.k.a the star your planet is orbiting is ~1e6m away and is rendered as a sphere, as it has a radius ~1e4 m. Other stars are ~1e8m away from you, so they show up as single lit pixels (sometimes) with a far Z-plane of ~1e13.
I think I have an idea/plan, but I think it involves knowledge/techniques I am not aware of yet.
Rationale:
Have world space of stars on a given frame
This gives us 'screen' space, or fragment position, of star's center of mass in fragment shader
Rather than render this as a scaled sphere, we can try to mimic what our eye's actually do: convolve this point (pixel) with an airy disc (or gaussian or whatever is most efficient, doesn't matter) so that stars are rendered instead as 'blurs' on the sky, with their 'bigness' depending on their luminosity and distance (in essence re-creating the magnitude system for free)
Theoretically this would enable me to change the 'lens' parameters of my airy disc at will in order to produce things that look reasonably accurate/artistic.
The problem: I have no idea how to achieve this blurring effect!
I have some basic understanding of shaders, and have different render passes going on currently, but this seems to involve things I have not stumbled upon, or even how to achieve this effect.
TLDR: given an input of a fragment position, how can I blur it in a fragment/pixel shader with an airy disc/gaussian/etc.?
I thought a logarithmic depth buffer would work initially, but obviously that only helps with z-fighting, not dealing with angular size of far away objects.
You are over-thinking it. For stars smaller than a pixel, just render a square with an Airy disc texture. This is not "faking" - this is just how [real-time] computer graphics works.
If the lens diameter changes, calculate a new Airy disc texture.
For stars that are a few pixels big (do they exist?) maybe you want to render a few-pixel sphere convolved with an Airy disc, then use that texture. Asking the GPU to do convolution every frame is a waste of time, unless you really need it to. If the size really is only a few pixels, you could alternatively render a few copies of the single-pixel texture, overlapping itself and 1 pixel apart. Though computing the texture would allow you to have precision smaller than a pixel, if that's something you need.
For the nearby stars, the Airy disc from each pixel sums up to make a halo, I think? Then you just render a halo, instead of doing the convolution. It isn't cheating, I swear.
If you really do want to do a convolution, you can do it directly: render everything to a texture by using a framebuffer, and then render that texture onto the screen, using a shader that reads from several adjacent texture pixels, and multiplies them by the kernel. Since this runs for every pixel multiplied by the size of the kernel, it quickly gets expensive, the more pixels you want to sample for the convolution, so you may prefer to skip some and make it approximate. If you are not doing real-time rendering then you can make it as slow as you want, of course.
When game developers do a Gaussian blur (quite common) or a box blur, they do a separate X blur and Y blur. This works because the convolution of an X blur and a Y blur is a 2D blur, but I don't know if this works for the Airy disc function. It minimizes the number of pixels sampled for the convolutions.
Related
I've written my own 3D Game Engine in the past few years and wanted to actually use it for a game.
I stumbled accros the following problem:
I have multiple planes in my game but lets talk about one single plane.
Naturally, planes are not able to dive into the ground and fly under the terrain.
Therefor, I need to implement something that detects the collision between a plane/jet and my ground.
The informations given are the following:
Grid of terrain [2- dimensional array; stores height at according x,z coordinate]
Hitbox of my plane (it moves with my plane, so the bounds etc. are all already calculated and given)
So about the hitboxes:
I though about which method to use. The best one in terms of performance seems to be simple spheres with different radius.
About the ground: Graphically, the ground is subdivided into triangles:
So what I need now is the optimal type of hitbox (sphere, AABB,...) and the according most efficient calculations.
My attempt was to get every surrounding triangle and calculate the distance from that one to each center of my hitbox spheres. If the distance is less than the radius, it has successfully detected a collision. But when I have up to 10/20 spheres in my plane and like 100 triangles to check, it will take to much time.
Another attempt was to get the vertical distance to the ground from each hitbox sphere. This one needs way less calculations but fails when getting near steep surfaces.
I would be very happy if someone could help me implementing an efficient version of plane/terrain collision detection :)
render terrain
May be you could try liner depth buffer to improve accuracy.
read depth texture
you can use glReadPixels with GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT and GL_FLOAT. That will copy depth buffer into CPU side memory. So now you can do also collision on CPU side or any computation related to ground in view...
use the depth buffer as texture
so copy it back GPU with glTexImage2D. I know this is slow (but most likely much faster then your current computation of collision. In case you are not using Intel HD Graphics You can instead #2,#3 use FBO for depth which will render depth buffer directly to texture. But on Intel this does not work reliably (or at all).
now render your objects (off screen) with GLSL
inside fragment shader just compare rendered position with depth (attached as texture). If bellow output the collision somewhere. If done in compute shaders than you can store results in some texture. Or you could use some attachment or FBO for this.
In case you can not use FBO you could render to "screen" with specifically color encoded collisions. Then read it with glReadPixels and scan for it to handle what ever collision logic you have on CPU side...
Do not write to Depth buffer in this pass !!! And also do not use CULL_FACE because that could miss some collision of the back side of your object.
now render the objects normally
in case you do not render in #4 or you encode collision to screen buffer you need to overwrite/render the stuff. Otherwise this step is not needed. But rendering after collision detection is good because in case of collision you most likely change the object position/orientation/mesh and already rendered object could be hindering the altered one.
[Notes]
Copying image between CPU and GPU is slow so use FBO and render to texture if you can instead.
If you are not familiar with multiple pass rendering see some QAs for inspiration:
OpenGL Scale Single Pixel Line
Render filled complex polygons with large number of vertices with OpenGL
This works only in view ... but you can do just collision rendering pass (per object). Render with camera set to view from top to down (birdseye) and covering only area around your object... Also you do not need too big resolution for this so it should be relatively fast ... So you can divide your screen to square areas (using glViewport) testing more objects in single frame to lover the sync time slowdowns as much as possible (use less glReadPixel calls). Also you do not need any vertex colors or textures for this.
I am looking for a way to "fill" three-dimensional geometry with color, and quite possibly a texture at some time later on.
Suppose for a moment that you could physically phase your head into a concrete wall, logically you would see only darkness. In OpenGL, however, when you do this the world is naturally hollow and transparent due to culling and because of how the geometry is drawn. I want to simulate the darkness/color/texture within it instead.
I know some games do this by overlaying a texture/color directly over the hud--therefore blinding the player.
Is there another way to do this, though? Suppose the player is standing half in water; they can partially see below the waves. How would you fill it to prevent them from being able to see clearly below what is now half of their screen?
What is this concept even called?
A problem with the texture-in-front-of-the-camera method is a texture is 2D but you want to visualize a slice of a 3D volume. For the first thing you talk about, the head-inside-a-wall idea, I'll point you to "3D/volume texturing". For standing-half-in-water, you're after "volume rendering" with "absorption" (discussed by #user3670102).
3D texturing
The general idea here is you have some function that defines a colour everywhere in a 3D space, not just on a surface (as with regular texture mapping). This is nice because you can put geometry anywhere and colour it in the fragment shader based on the 3D position. Think of taking a slice through the volume and looking at the intersection colour.
For the head-in-a-wall effect you could draw a full screen polygon in front of the player (right on the near clipping plane, although you might want to push this forwards a bit so its not too small) and colour it based on a 3D function. Now it'll look properly solid and move ad the player does and not like you've cheaply stuck a texture over the screen.
The actual function could be defined with a 3D texture but that's very memory intensive. Instead, you could look into either procedural 3D colour (a procedural wood or brick shader is pretty common as an example). Even assuming a 2D texture is "extruded" through the volume will work, or better yet weight 3 textures (one for each axis) based on the angle of the intersection/surface you're drawing on.
Detecting an intersection with the geometry and the near clipping plane is probably the hardest bit here. If I were you I'd look at tricks with the z-buffer and make sure to draw everything as solid non-self-intersecting geometry. A simple idea might be to draw back faces only after drawing everything with front faces. If you can see back faces that part of the near plane must be inside something. For these pixels you could calculate the near clipping plane position in world space and apply a 3D texture. Though I suspect there are faster ways than drawing everything twice.
In reality there would probably be no light getting to what you see and it should be black, but I guess just ignore this and render the colour directly, unlit.
Absorption
This sounds way harder than it actually is. If you have some transparent solid that's all the one colour ("homogeneous") then it removes light the further light has to travel through it. Think of many alpha-transparent surfaces, take the limit and you have an exponential. The light remaining is close to 1/exp(dist) or exp(-dist). Google "Beer's Law". From here,
vec3 Absorbance = WaterColor * WaterDensity * -WaterDepth;
vec3 Transmittance = exp(Absorbance);
A great way to find distances through something is to render the back faces (or seabed/water floor) with additive blending using a shader that draws distance to a floating point texture. Then switch to subtractive blending and render all the front faces (or water surface). You're left with a texture containing distances/depth for the above equation.
Volume Rendering
Combining the two ideas, the material is both a transparent solid but the colour (and maybe density) varies throughout the volume. This starts to get pretty complicated if you have large amounts of data and want it to be fast. A straight forward way to render this is to numerically integrate a ray through the 3D texture (or procedural function, whatever you're using), at the same time applying the absorption function. A basic brute force Euler integration might start a ray for each pixel on the near plane, then march forwards at even distances. Over each step while you march you assume the colour remains constant and apply absorption, keeping track of how much light you have left. A quick google brings up this.
This seems related to looking through what's called "participating media". On the less extreme end, you'd have light fog, or smoky haze. In the middle could be, say, dirty water. And the extreme case would be your head-in-the-wall example.
Doing this in a physically accurate way isn't trivial, because the darkening effect is more pronounced when the thickness of the media is greater.
But you can fake this by making some assumptions and giving the interior geometry (under the water or inside the wall) darker by reduced lighting or using darker colors. If you care about the depth effect, look at OpenGL and fog.
For underwater, you can make the back side of the water a semi-transparent color that causes stuff above it to have a suitable change in color.
If you really want to go nuts with accuracy, look at Kajia's Rendering Equation. That covers everything (including stuff that glows), but generally needs simplification and approximations to be more useful.
I have a texture and a mesh, if I apply the texture on the mesh, it tiles it continuously as one would expect. The offset for each tile is equal.
The problem:
Non-tilable texture or texture with some outstanding elements are looking repetitive and cheap.
Example:
Solution Attempt
My first attempt was to programatically generate a texture size of a mesh with randomised offsets for each tiles. Of course the size of the texture became a problem, let alone the GPU limitation of a single texture max size.
What I would like to do
I would like to know if there's a way to make a Unity shader or a material that would load a single texture and tile it with random offsets for each tile and do it only once to keep the performance high?
I believe you might try one of techniques invented by Inigo Quilez (http://www.iquilezles.org/www/articles/texturerepetition/texturerepetition.htm).
Basically, non-tilable textures and textures with some outstanding elements are different problems.
Non-tilable textures
There are 2 ways of solving it:
Fixing the texture itself;
Mirrored repeat can be used in some cases (see GL_MIRRORED_REPEAT)
Textures with some outstanding elements
This can be solved in the following ways (or conjunction of them):
Modifying the texture (this includes enlargement as well);
Using multitexturing;
Well, maybe mirrored repeat can be used as well in some cases.
Shifting texture coordinates randomly
Unfortunately, I can't think of any case of these 2 problems (except, maybe, white nose textures) where texture coordinates shifting is a solution.
You are looking at this problem the wrong way. All games face this issue. They hide it simply by a) varying textures a lot instead of texturing large areas with the same texture and b) through level design. Imagine this plane filled with barns, gras, trees, fences and what not - suddenly the mono-textured surface blends in with its surroundings. Also camera angle plays a huge role in this. Try changing your camera position close to the ground and the repeating texture is much less noticeable.
Your plane is just a very extreme example. You should not try to fix it at this point but rather continue to build your game. Or design your textures to repeat well without showing clear patterns. The extreme would be a flatcolored texture. But generally large outdoor terrain textures simply have very little structure, almost being like noise, plus they don't use colors with any contrast, just shades of the same color.
Your offset idea won't work. Perhaps it might work technically (it may be inefficient though). But random offsets can't cover up the patterns, instead it will create new ones because the textures won't smoothly interpolate at their edges anymore, so you could clearly see a grid of squares. That I guess would be even uglier and more noticeable.
Lastly you can increase texture size or scale (blurryness may need to be covered up as explained above). In relation to camera angle this would be the easiest, most effective fix. Or at least an improvement.
old thread, but relevant to many I think. You can do this in a shader, by randomizing the Vertex position on the XZ plane, (or better) the UV co-ordinates, based on the world space of the co-ordinates.
The texture will still tile.... but instead of being in a straight line... it will be in a random wiggly line. This is great for stuff like terrain, grass etc.... but obviously no good if you want to maintain straight lines in your textures.
A second option is diffuse-detail shader. It tiles one texture up close to camera, and another when further away (which you can make softer / more blurry
Third option... blend 2 textures together, with different UV tiling scale (non divisible. e.g not scale 2 and 4, but use 1 and 2.334556) on each, so the pattern is harder to see
I'm drawing surface composed of thousands of cubes. However when I'm looking in positive Z direction - that's where the light is, I get low fps and artifacts.
This is how it looks when I'm looking in negative Z direction:
This is how it looks when I'm looking in positive Z direction, also drops fps noticeably:
You are probably dependent of the order in which your cubes are rendered. That would explain why there is a difference between looking +Z or -Z. When rendering back to front, EVERY fragment of every cube is rendered. When rendering front to back with depth test, most fragments will be discarded. As for the artefacts you are seeing, could be Z-fighting, but that's a long shot.
How bad is this dip in performance? If you do a Z-only pre-pass of your geometry, skipping writes to the color buffer (and using a very simple pass-through fragment shader) you can improve performance greatly in situations where you have poorly-ordered/unsorted geometry and are fill-rate limited. This only helps when you are doing complicated fragment processing, however; it introduces twice the vertex transform overhead since you basically draw everything twice. Your situation could be either vertex or fragment bound, since composing surfaces of cubes is not exactly the most efficient way of rendering large planar surfaces.
My other suggestion, since you mention rendering a scene composed of "thousands of cubes" would be to implement something akin to voxel collapsing. All of your cubes in this example appear to be in the same plane, you can easily replace the faces for a collection of such cubes with fewer faces that combine adjacent cubes. Minecraft does this, by periodically re-meshing dynamically updated portions of the scene using a greedy meshing algorithm.
Of course, spatial partitioning is another issue, but I assume you already have some sort of system in-place?
I'm finishing up on a 3D planet with ROAM (continuous level of detail).
My goal now is to have good quality render using textures.
I'm trying to find a way I can use a tiling system (small good textures combined), but in a way I can take advantage of my CLOD mesh.
Current algorithms (from what I've found) using this tiling systems produce a huge texture and then direcly apply it. That is not what I want... the planet is very big, and I want more power than simply increasing the texture size.
Is there any known algorithm/opengl feature for this kind of stuff?
I don't know much about shaders, but Is it possible to create one that paints a objects alone... I mean, not giving the texcoords, but putting the right color for every pixel (not vertex) of the mesh?
PS: My world is built using perlin noise... so I can get the height in any world point (height map with infinite resolution)
You have used 3D Perlin noise for the terrain, why not generate the texture as well? Generally, programs like Terragen, Vistapro and the like use altitude to randomly select a range of color from the palette, modify that color based on slope, and perhaps add detail from smaller textures based on both slope and altitude. In your case, distance could also modify detail. For that matter, 2d perlin noise would work well for detail texture.
Have you modified the heightmap at all? Something like an ocean would be hard to achieve with pure 3d Perlin noise, but flattening everything below a certain altitude and applying a nice algorithmic ocean texture (properly tuned 2d Perlin noise with transparency below a certain level) would look good.