I am working on a project where I have to implement voxel cone tracing for indirect light in C++/OpenGL. I already have a deferred renderer setup but most of the VCT examples I could find usually draw the scene once for voxelization and once with cone tracing shaders. Is it possible to run cone tracing shaders over a fullscreen quad and sample vertex data from the GBuffer or is that generally a stupid idea? Do I lose accuracy because I only have per pixel vertex data?
Is it possible to run cone tracing shaders over a fullscreen quad and sample vertex data from the GBuffer or is that generally a stupid idea?
Yes, however that's not voxel cone tracing anymore. That's Screen-Space Global Illumination (SSGI) instead. You can think of the voxelized scene in VCT as a 3D GBuffer, which makes all the difference between "screen space" and "full scene".
Do I lose accuracy because I only have per pixel vertex data?
Absolutely. All screen space approximations suffer from the same set of artifacts. They do not account for surfaces that aren't directly visible on the screen (either out of frame or occluded by visible geometry). Most noticeably, when the camera moves and objects enter or exit the frame, the reflections on visible surfaces would also change unrealistically.
A question is perhaps, what's your motivation for trying doing both.
When you do Voxel Cone tracing you are trying to solve the exact same problem you would be trying to solve with deferred rendering and now have the overhead of both techniques, if you are already willing to deal with the overhead of Voxel Cone tracing then it's better to fully commit to that technique.
The reason is simple, if you are doing voxel cone tracing then you have a 3D texture of some sort (could be voxel oct tree, and actual 3D texture or some other structure). That is essentially a 3D Gbuffer.
If your idea is simply to eliminate the need for such a structure and use the existing planar GBuffer instead, then you are introducing artifacts that do not appear with traditional SSRT techniques.
In essence trying both at the same time is likely to give you the worst of both worlds rather than the best.
Related
To draw a sphere, one does not need to know anything else but it's position and radius. Thus, rendering a sphere by passing a triangle mesh sounds very inefficient unless you need per-vertex colors or other such features. Despite googling, searching D3D11 documentation and reading Introduction to 3D Programming with DirectX 11, I failed to understand
Is it possible to draw a sphere by passing only the position and radius of it to the GPU?
If not, what is the main principle I have misunderstood?
If yes, how to do it?
My ultimate goal is to pass more parameters later on which will be used by a shader effect.
You will need to implement Geometry Shader. This shader should take Sphere center and radius as input and emit a banch of vertices for rasterization. In general this is called point sprites.
One option would be to use tessellation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessellation_(computer_graphics)
Most of the mess will be generated on the gpu side.
Note:
In the end you still have more parameters sent to the shaders because the sphere will be split into triangles that will be each rendered individually on the screen.
But the split is done on the gpu side.
While you can create a sphere from a point & vertex on the GPU, it's generally not very efficient. With higher-end GPUs you could use Hardware Tessellation, but even that would be better done a different way.
The better solution is to use instancing and render lots of the same VB/IB of sphere geometry scaled to different positions and sizes.
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 implementing a deferred shading system which uses the compute shader(in DirectX 11) to cull lights in tiles, so I can get thousands of lights at a stable framerate.The problem comes when I have to determine whether a light is blocked by scene geometry.I mean my point lights pass trough walls and bridges.I have a shadow map on the main light's(the sun) point of view, but generating a shadow map for each point light on the scene would require generating a thousand cubemaps and that's not possible.So how is this problem usually dealt with?Games like Dead Space 3 and Battlefield 3 have a lot of lights on scene, yet they don't bleed trough solid objects.
One straight forward solution would be the use of Screen-Space Ambient Occlusion approaches. There you try to estimate the occlusion based on sampling of the neighbourhood. One approach I know is SSDO which directly targets the creation of shadows in screen-space. Probably you will end up with lots of artifacts in complex scenes. The advantage is that SSDO also adds some global illumination effects.
I think most games/engines are trying to overcome such problems by preprocessing steps.
Static Lightening: If your light source does not move around (lights in buildings...) compute Lightmaps or some extra vertex attributes containing the light.
Tweak the lights: Just adjust falloff distance or intensity or location until there is no noticeable bleeding.
Some own ideas: Depending on your representation of the light (sphere/disc?) you could compute a pruned shape for the lights. Pixels behind a wall would not lie inside the new light volume and are not lightened this way. If you can't shape your light volume arbitrary you probably could add one or two planes per light defining walls. These planes can be undefined for most lights and only pushed to the GPU for a light near a wall. Than a pixel can be checked on which side it lies during the lightening process for the respective light.
I have a program in which I need to apply a 2-dimensional texture (simple image) to a surface generated using the marching-cubes algorithm. I have access to the geometry and can add texture coordinates with relative ease, but the best way to generate the coordinates is eluding me.
Each point in the volume represents a single unit of data, and each unit of data may have different properties. To simplify things, I'm looking at sorting them into "types" and assigning each type a texture (or portion of a single large texture atlas).
My problem is I have no idea how to generate the appropriate coordinates. I can store the location of the type's texture in the type class and use that, but then seams will be horribly stretched (if two neighboring points use different parts of the atlas). If possible, I'd like to blend the textures on seams, but I'm not sure the best manner to do that. Blending is optional, but I need to texture the vertices in some fashion. It's possible, but undesirable, to split the geometry into parts for each type, or to duplicate vertices for texturing purposes.
I'd like to avoid using shaders if possible, but if necessary I can use a vertex and/or fragment shader to do the texture blending. If I do use shaders, what would be the most efficient way of telling it was texture or portion to sample? It seems like passing the type through a parameter would be the simplest way, but possible slow.
My volumes are relatively small, 8-16 points in each dimension (I'm keeping them smaller to speed up generation, but there are many on-screen at a given time). I briefly considered making the isosurface twice the resolution of the volume, so each point has more vertices (8, in theory), which may simplify texturing. It doesn't seem like that would make blending any easier, though.
To build the surfaces, I'm using the Visualization Library for OpenGL and its marching cubes and volume system. I have the geometry generated fine, just need to figure out how to texture it.
Is there a way to do this efficiently, and if so what? If not, does anyone have an idea of a better way to handle texturing a volume?
Edit: Just to note, the texture isn't simply a gradient of colors. It's actually a texture, usually with patterns. Hence the difficulty in mapping it, a gradient would've been trivial.
Edit 2: To help clarify the problem, I'm going to add some examples. They may just confuse things, so consider everything above definite fact and these just as help if they can.
My geometry is in cubes, always (loaded, generated and saved in cubes). If shape influences possible solutions, that's it.
I need to apply textures, consisting of patterns and/or colors (unique ones depending on the point's "type") to the geometry, in a technique similar to the splatting done for terrain (this isn't terrain, however, so I don't know if the same techniques could be used).
Shaders are a quick and easy solution, although I'd like to avoid them if possible, as I mentioned before. Something usable in a fixed-function pipeline is preferable, mostly for the minor increase in compatibility and development time. Since it's only a minor increase, I will go with shaders and multipass rendering if necessary.
Not sure if any other clarification is necessary, but I'll update the question as needed.
On the texture combination part of the question:
Have you looked into 3d textures? As we're talking marching cubes I should probably immediately say that I'm explicitly not talking about volumetric textures. Instead you stack all your 2d textures into a 3d texture. You then encode each texture coordinate to be the 2d position it would be and the texture it would reference as the third coordinate. It works best if your textures are generally of the type where, logically, to transition from one type of pattern to another you have to go through the intermediaries.
An obvious use example is texture mapping to a simple height map — you might have a snow texture on top, a rocky texture below that, a grassy texture below that and a water texture at the bottom. If a vertex that references the water is next to one that references the snow then it is acceptable for the geometry fill to transition through the rock and grass texture.
An alternative is to do it in multiple passes using additive blending. For each texture, draw every face that uses that texture and draw a fade to transparent extending across any faces that switch from one texture to another.
You'll probably want to prep the depth buffer with a complete draw (with the colour masks all set to reject changes to the colour buffer) then switch to a GL_EQUAL depth test and draw again with writing to the depth buffer disabled. Drawing exactly the same geometry through exactly the same transformation should produce exactly the same depth values irrespective of issues of accuracy and precision. Use glPolygonOffset if you have issues.
On the coordinates part:
Popular and easy mappings are cylindrical, box and spherical. Conceptualise that your shape is bounded by a cylinder, box or sphere with a well defined mapping from surface points to texture locations. Then for each vertex in your shape, start at it and follow the normal out until you strike the bounding geometry. Then grab the texture location that would be at that position on the bounding geometry.
I guess there's a potential problem that normals tend not to be brilliant after marching cubes, but I'll wager you know more about that problem than I do.
This is a hard and interesting problem.
The simplest way is to avoid the issue completely by using 3D texture maps, especially if you just want to add some random surface detail to your isosurface geometry. Perlin noise based procedural textures implemented in a shader work very well for this.
The difficult way is to look into various algorithms for conformal texture mapping (also known as conformal surface parametrization), which aim to produce a mapping between 2D texture space and the surface of the 3D geometry which is in some sense optimal (least distorting). This paper has some good pictures. Be aware that the topology of the geometry is very important; it's easy to generate a conformal mapping to map a texture onto a closed surface like a brain, considerably more complex for higher genus objects where it's necessary to introduce cuts/tears/joins.
You might want to try making a UV Map of a mesh in a tool like Blender to see how they do it. If I understand your problem, you have a 3D field which defines a solid volume as well as a (continuous) color. You've created a mesh from the volume, and now you need to UV-map the mesh to a 2D texture with texels extracted from the continuous color space. In a tool you would define "seams" in the 3D mesh which you could cut apart so that the whole mesh could be laid flat to make a UV map. There may be aliasing in your texture at the seams, so when you render the mesh it will also be discontinuous at those seams (ie a triangle strip can't cross over the seam because it's a discontinuity in the texture).
I don't know any formal methods for flattening the mesh, but you could imagine cutting it along the seams and then treating the whole thing as a spring/constraint system that you drop onto a flat surface. I'm all about solving things the hard way. ;-)
Due to the issues with texturing and some of the constraints I have, I've chosen to write a different algorithm to build the geometry and handle texturing directly in that as it produces surfaces. It's somewhat less smooth than the marching cubes, but allows me to apply the texcoords in a way that works for my project (and is a bit faster).
For anyone interested in texturing marching cubes, or just blending textures, Tommy's answer is a very interesting technique and the links timday posted are excellent resources on flattening meshes for texturing. Thanks to both of them for their answers, hopefully they can be of use to others. :)
I am trying to write an optimized code that renders a 3D scene using OpenGL onto a sphere and then displays the unwrapped sphere on the screen ie producing a planar map of a purely reflective sphere. In math terms, I would like to produce a projection map where the x axis is the polar angle and y axis is the azimuth.
I am trying to do this by placing the camera at the center of the sphere probe and taking planar shots around so as to approximate spherical quads with planar tiles of the frustum. Then I can use this as texture to apply to a distorted planar patch.
Seems to me this is pretty tedious approach. I wonder if there is way to take this on using shaders or some GPU-smart method.
Thank you
S.
I can give you two solutions.
The first is to make a standard render-to-texture, but with a cubemap attached as the destination buffer. If your hardware is recent enough, it can be done in a single pass. This will deal with all the needed math in HW for you, but data repartition of cubemaps aren't ideal (quite a lot of distortion if the corners). In most cases, it should be enough though.
After this, you render a quad to the screen, and in a shader you map your UV coordinates to xyz vectors using staightforwad spherical mapping. The HW will compute for you which side of the cubemap to take, at which UV.
The second is more or less the same, but with a custom deformation and less HW support : dual paraboloids. Two paraboloids may not be enough, but you are free to slightly modify the equations and make 6 passes. The rendering pass is the same, but this time you're all by yourself to choose the right texture and compute the UVs.
By the time you've bothered to build the model, take the planar shots, apply non-affine transformations and stitch the whole thing together, you've probably gained no performance and considerable complexity. Just project the planar image mathematically and be done with it.
You seem to be asking for OpenGL's sphere mapping. NeHe has a tutorial on sphere mapping that might be useful.