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.
Related
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.
I'd like to do a cartoony 3D character, where the facial features are flat-drawn and animated in 2D. Sort of like the Bubble Guppies characters.
I'm struggling with finding a good method to do it. I'm using Libgdx, but I think the potential methodologies could apply to any game engine.
Here are ideas I thought of, but each has drawbacks. Is there a way this is commonly done? I was just playing a low-budget Wii game with my kids (a Nickelodeon dancing game) that uses this type of animation for the faces.
Ideas:
UV animation - Is there a way to set up a game model (FBX format) so that certain UV's are stored in various skins? Then the UV's could jump around to various places in a sprite map.
Projected face - This idea is convoluted. Use a projection of a texture onto the model with a vertex shader uniform that shifts the UV's of the projected texture around. So basically, you'd need a projection matrix that's set up to move the face projection around with the model. But you'd need enough padding around the face frame sprites to keep the rest of the model clear of other parts of the sprite map. And this results in a complicated fragment shader that would not be great for mobile.
Move flat 3D decal with model - Separately show a 3D decal that's lined up with the model and batched as a separate mesh in the game. The decal could just be a quad where you change the UV attributes of the vertices on each frame of animation. However, this method won't wrap around the curvature of a face. Maybe it could be broken down to separate decals for each eye and the mouth, but still wouldn't look great, and require creating a separate file to go with each model to define where the decals go.
Separate bone for each frame of animation - Model a duplicate face in the mesh for every frame of animation, and give each a unique bone. Animate the face by toggling bone scales between zero and one. This idea quickly breaks down if there are more than a few frames of animation.
Update part of skin each frame - Copy the skin into an FBO. Draw the latest frame of animation into the part of the FBO color texture that contains the face. Downsides to this method are that you'd need a separate copy of the texture in memory for every instance of the model, and the FBO would have to either do a buffer restore every frame (costly) or you'd have to redraw the entire skin into the FBO each frame (also costly).
I have other ideas that are considerably more difficult than these. It feels like there must be an easier way.
Edit:
One more idea... Uniform UV offset and vertex colors - This method would use vertex colors since they are easily supported in all game engines and modeling packages, but in many cases are unused. In the texture, create a strip of the frames of animation. Set up the face UV's for the first frame. Color all vertices with Alpha 0 except the face vertices, which can be colored Alpha 1. Then pass a UV face offset uniform to the vertex shader, and multiply it by a step function on the vertex colors before adding it to the UVs. This avoids the downsides of all the above methods: everything could be wrapped into one texture shared by all instances of the model, and there would be no two-pass pixels on the model except possibly where the face is. The downside here is a heftier model (four extra attributes per vertex, although perhaps the color could be baked down to a single byte).
Your shader could receive 2 textures, one for the body, and one for the face. The face one being transparent so you could overlay it on top of the body one. Then you just need to send a different face texture based on the animation.
I am struggling with the same problem with implementing a 2d animation to a background billboard in my 3d scene.
I believe that Using Decals is the simplest solution, and implementing the animation is as easy as updating the decal’s TextureRegion according to an Animation object:
TextureRegion frame = animation.getKeyFrame(currentFrameTime, true);
decal.setTextureRegion (frame);
I guess the real problem in your case is positioning the decal inside the scene.
One solution could be using your 3D modeling software for modeling a "phantom" mesh that will store the position of the decal.
The "phantom" mesh will not be rendered with all the other 3d elements, instead it will be used to determine the position of the decals vertices. The only thing you’ll need to do is copy the “phantom” position vertices and paste them to the decal.
I hadn’t got to implement this solution yet, but theoretically it could be relatively easily done.
Hope this idea will help you, and I will appreciate you sharing other solutions/code to this problem if you find any.
I want to track the mouse coordinates in my OpenGL scene on the ground surface of the world which is modeled as a height map. Currently there is no fancy stuff like hardware tessellation. Note that this question is not about object picking.
Currently I'm doing the following which is clearly dropping the performance because of a read-back operation:
Render the world (the ground surface)
Read back the depth value at the mouse coordinates
Render the rest of the scene
Swap buffers and render the next frame
The read back is between the two render steps because I want the depth value of the ground surface without any objects in front of it. It is done using the following command:
GLfloat depth;
glReadPixels(x, y, 1, 1, GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT, GL_FLOAT, &depth);
My application limits the frame rate to 60 frames per second. When rendering the scene without the read back operation, I experience a CPU usage of less than 5%, but when doing the read back, it increases to about 75% although I'm not doing much to render the scene or update any game model or such things.
A temporary solution is to cache the depth value of the pixel under the mouse and update it only every 5th or 10th frame which causes the CPU usage going back down below 10%. But clearly can't be the best solution to the problem.
How can I implement picking (not object picking since I want the (floating point) coordinates on the surface) efficiently?
I already thought of reading back the depth value of the front buffer instead of the back buffer, but when googling on how to do so, I only find people complaining about glRead* methods to be best avoided at all. But how can I read something (do picking) without reading something (using glRead*)?
I'm confused. How do other people implement picking?
A totally different approach would be implementing the world surface picking in software. It should be no big deal to reconstruct a 3D ray from the camera "into the depth", representing the points in space which are rendered at the target pixel. Then I could implement an intersection algorithm to find the front-most point on the surface.
You typically implement it on the CPU! Find your picking ray in heightmap coordinates and do a simple line-trace across the heightmap. This is very similar to line-drawing. In each cell you intersect, test against the triangles you used to triangulate it.
It is important to avoid reading from the GPU until it's done. Since you normally schedule drawing commands several frames ahead (GL does this automatically), this means that you will also only get the results then - or stall the CPU until the GPU caught up. But don't do that for simple things like this!
I'm writing a Minecraft like static 3d block world in C++ / openGL. I'm working at improving framerates, and so far I've implemented frustum culling using an octree. This helps, but I'm still seeing moderate to bad frame rates. The next step would be to cull cubes that are hidden from the viewpoint by closer cubes. However I haven't been able to find many resources on how to accomplish this.
Create a render target with a Z-buffer (or "depth buffer") enabled. Then make sure to sort all your opaque objects so they are rendered front to back, i.e. the ones closest to the camera first. Anything using alpha blending still needs to be rendered back to front, AFTER you rendered all your opaque objects.
Another technique is occlusion culling: You can cheaply "dry-render" your geometry and then find out how many pixels failed the depth test. There is occlusion query support in DirectX and OpenGL, although not every GPU can do it.
The downside is that you need a delay between the rendering and fetching the result - depending on the setup (like when using predicated tiling), it may be a full frame. That means that you need to be creative there, like rendering a bounding box that is bigger than the object itself, and dismissing the results after a camera cut.
And one more thing: A more traditional solution (that you can use concurrently with occlusion culling) is a room/portal system, where you define regions as "rooms", connected via "portals". If a portal is not visible from your current room, you can't see the room connected to it. And even it is, you can click your viewport to what's visible through the portal.
The approach I took in this minecraft level renderer is essentially a frustum-limited flood fill. The 16x16x128 chunks are split into 16x16x16 chunklets, each with a VBO with the relevant geometry. I start a floodfill in the chunklet grid at the player's location to find chunklets to render. The fill is limited by:
The view frustum
Solid chunklets - if the entire side of a chunklet is opaque blocks, then the floodfill will not enter the chunklet in that direction
Direction - the flood will not reverse direction, e.g.: if the current chunklet is to the north of the starting chunklet, do not flood into the chunklet to the south
It seems to work OK. I'm on android, so while a more complex analysis (antiportals as noted by Mike Daniels) would cull more geometry, I'm already CPU-limited so there's not much point.
I've just seen your answer to Alan: culling is not your problem - it's what and how you're sending to OpenGL that is slow.
What to draw: don't render a cube for each block, render the faces of transparent blocks that border an opaque block. Consider a 3x3x3 cube of, say, stone blocks: There is no point drawing the center block because there is no way that the player can see it. Likewise, the player will never see the faces between two adjacent stone blocks, so don't draw them.
How to draw: As noted by Alan, use VBOs to batch geometry. You will not believe how much faster they make things.
An easier approach, with minimal changes to your existing code, would be to use display lists. This is what minecraft uses.
How many blocks are you rendering and on what hardware? Modern hardware is very fast and is very difficult to overwhelm with geometry (unless we're talking about a handheld platform). On any moderately recent desktop hardware you should be able to render hundreds of thousands of cubes per frame at 60 frames per second without any fancy culling tricks.
If you're drawing each block with a separate draw call (glDrawElements/Arrays, glBegin/glEnd, etc) (bonus points: don't use glBegin/glEnd) then that will be your bottleneck. This is a common pitfall for beginners. If you're doing this, then you need to batch together all triangles that share texture and shading parameters into a single call for each setup. If the geometry is static and doesn't change frame to frame, you want to use one Vertex Buffer Object for each batch of triangles.
This can still be combined with frustum culling with an octree if you typically only have a small portion of your total game world in the view frustum at one time. The vertex buffers are still loaded statically and not changed. Frustum cull the octree to generate only the index buffers for the triangles in the frustum and upload those dynamically each frame.
If you have surfaces close to the camera, you can create a frustum which represents an area that is not visible, and cull objects that are entirely contained in that frustum. In the diagram below, C is the camera, | is a flat surface near the camera, and the frustum-shaped region composed of . represents the occluded area. The surface is called an antiportal.
.
..
...
....
|....
|....
|....
|....
C |....
|....
|....
|....
....
...
..
.
(You should of course also turn on depth testing and depth writing as mentioned in other answer and comments -- it's very simple to do in OpenGL.)
The use of a Z-Buffer ensures that polygons overlap correctly.
Enabling the depth test makes every drawing operation check the Z-buffer before placing pixels onto the screen.
If you have convex objects you must (for performance) enable backface culling!
Example code:
glEnable(GL_CULL_FACE);
glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST);
glDepthMask(GL_TRUE);
You can change the behaviour of glCullFace() passing GL_FRONT or GL_BACK...
glCullFace(...);
// Draw the "game world"...
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. :)