Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking for a way to do a wormhole effect like this:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeOBXmLeJWo&feature=youtu.be&t=43s
I have already found nice tunnels in the examples, but here it is a little bit more involved. Actually the space appears to be warped somehow and the movement is high velocity, so it is not just entering into a simple tunnel. Any idea how to do the space warping part of it?
I decided to add more info because this was too broad:
I have a galaxy and each star has a 3d coord, size, etc. in this galaxy. I can visit these stars with a space ship. There are very distant stars and it would take a lot of time to get to them, that's why I need warp (faster than light) speed. This does not necessarily requires a wormhole according to physics, but this app does not have to be overly realistic. I don't want to solve this with pure OpenGL so ofc. we can use shaders. I'd like to warp the space in the middle of the screen when accelerating to warp speeds. After that a tunnel effect can come, because I think it would consume a lot of resources to update every star by very high speeds, so I'd like to update only the close stars. This can't be a prerendered animation, because the destination is not always certain, so this has sometimes exploration purposes and sometimes traveling purposes. I don't think warping only the sky box is enough, but I am not sure about this.
There are 2 things going on there:
space curvature around the hole
You need to construct equation that describe the curvature of space around hole parametrized by hole parameters (mass,position,orientation) and time so you can animate it. Then from this curvature you can compute relative displacement of pixel/voxel around it. I would start with cylindrical cones with radius modulated by sin of the distance from hole +/- some animation parameters (need experimentation).
Something like this:
and for example start with (in wormhole local coordinates LCS):
r = R * sin(z*0.5*M_PI/wormhole_max_depth)
Then modulate it by additional therms. The wormhole_max_depth,R should be functions of time even linear or with some periodic therm so it is pulsating a bit.
The displacement can be done by simply computing distance of concerned point to cone surface and push it towards it the more the closer to the cone it is (inside cone voxels are considered below surface so apply max displacement strength)
particle/light/matter bursting out of the hole
I would go for this only when #1 is alredy done. It should be simple particle effect with some nice circular blended alpha texture animated on the surface of the cone from #1. I see it as few for loops with pseudo random displacement in position and speed ...
Techniques
This topic depends on how you want to do this. I see these possibilities:
Distort geometry during rendering (3D vector)
So you can apply the cone displacement directly on rendered stuff. This would be best applicable in GLSL but the geometry rendered must have small enough primitives to make this work on vertex level ...
Distort skybox/stars only (3D vector or 2D raster but objects stay unaffected)
So you apply the displacement on texture coordinates of skybox or directly on the star positions.
Distort whole rendered scene in second pass (2D raster)
This need to use 2 pass rendering and in the second pass just wrap the texture coordinates near hole.
As you got different local stars in each sector I would use star background generated from star catalogue (list of all your stars) And apply the distortion on them directly in 3D vector space (so no skybox.. option #2). And also because my engines already use such representation and rendering for the same reasons.
[Edit1] cone geometry
I haven't much time for this recently until today so I did not make much of a progress. I decided to start with cone geometry so here it is:
class wormhole
{
public:
reper rep; // coordinate system transform matrix
double R0,R1,H,t; // radiuses,depth
wormhole(){ R0=10.0; R1=100.0; H=50.0; t=0.0; };
wormhole(wormhole& a){ *this=a; };
~wormhole(){};
wormhole* operator = (const wormhole *a) { *this=*a; return this; };
/*wormhole* operator = (const wormhole &a) { ...copy... return this; };*/
void ah2xyz(double *xyz,double a,double h) // compute cone position from parameters a=<0,2pi>, h=<0,1>
{
double r,tt;
tt=t; if (t>0.5) tt=0.5; r=2.0*R0*tt; // inner radius R0
tt=t; if (t>1.0) tt=1.0; r+=(R1-r)*h*h*tt; // outer radius R1
xyz[0]=r*cos(a);
xyz[1]=r*sin(a);
xyz[2]=H*h*tt;
rep.l2g(xyz,xyz);
}
void draw_cone()
{
int e;
double a,h,da=pi2*0.04,p[3];
glColor3f(0.2,0.2,0.2);
for (h=0.0;h<=1.0;h+=0.1){ glBegin(GL_LINE_STRIP); for (e=1,a=0.0;e;a+=da) { if (a>=pi2) { e=0; a=0.0; } ah2xyz(p,a,h); glVertex3dv(p); } glEnd(); }
for (e=1,a=0.0;e;a+=da){ glBegin(GL_LINE_STRIP); for (h=0.0;h<=1.0;h+=0.1) { if (a>=pi2) { e=0; a=0.0; } ah2xyz(p,a,h); glVertex3dv(p); } glEnd(); }
}
} hole;
Where rep is my class for homogenous 4x4 transform matrix (remembering both direct and inverse matrices at the same time) function l2g just transforms from local coordinates to global. The cone parameters are:
R0 - inner cone radius when fully grown
R1 - outer cone radius when fully grown
H - the height/depth of the cone when fully grown
t - is animation parameter values <0.0,1.0> are the growth and values above 1.0 are reserved for wormhole fully grown animation
Here how it looks like:
What I would do is simply calculate a vector from the texture coordinate of the screen center to the texture coordinate of the pixel you're shading.
Then modify that vector in any way you want (time based for example) and apply it to the texture coordinate of the pixel you're shading and then use the resulting coordinate to sample your texture.
In pseudocode this would be something like this:
vec2 vector_to_screen_center = vec2(0.5) - texture_coordinate;
texture_coordinate += vector_to_screen_center * sin(time) * 0.1; // Time based modulation of the vector.
gl_FragColor = texture2D(screen_texture, texture_coordinate);
Your question does not have a GLSL tag. If you plan to do this without shaders, this is going to be hard and/or inefficient.
Related
I have an object that I want to to move around using the following mechanic: the left and right arrows change its rotation and the up arrow increments its position.
My problem is that I either can't rotate the object around itself, or I can't move it in the direction being looked at.
The draw function is as follows:
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glPushMatrix();
glScalef(SCALE, SCALE, SCALE);
glTranslatef(x, 0, 0);
glRotatef(rotationZ, 0, 0, 1);
glTranslatef(-x, 0, 0);
// Draw the object...
glPopMatrix();
Key press detection code:
case GLUT_KEY_UP:
teclas.up = GL_TRUE;
glutPostRedisplay();
break;
case GLUT_KEY_LEFT:
teclas.left = GL_TRUE;
glutPostRedisplay();
break;
case GLUT_KEY_RIGHT:
teclas.right = GL_TRUE;
glutPostRedisplay();
break;
Timer function:
if (teclas.up) {
x++;
}
if (teclas.left) {
rotationZ++;
}
if (teclas.right) {
rotationZ--;
}
glutPostRedisplay();
I've seen multiple threads about this, and I've tried changing the signal of the x variable but nothing seems to work.
Edit(solved):
I just changed the part of the Timer function that is responsible for the forward movement to this:
if (estado.teclas.up) {
homer.x+= (float)cos(homer.rotationZ * M_PI / 180);
homer.y+= (float)sin(homer.rotationZ * M_PI / 180);
}
And also, my Draw function:
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glPushMatrix();
glScalef(SCALE, SCALE, SCALE);
glTranslatef(x, 0, 0);
glRotatef(rotationZ, 0, 0, 1);
// Draw the object...
glPopMatrix();
This way, the object always moves towards what it's facing
This is a case of problem with Moving Reference Frame, those are the keywords. Unless you simulate physics of process as well, for OpenGL rendering all we have to worry about are the coordinates. Here we have the stationary reference frame, sometimes called a world frame (especially if observer is moving relative to it as well), and a moving reference frame (MRF )connected to object. MRF can have arbitrary rotation and translation relative to world frame, there are traditional ways how it is defined.
For example for Earth globe MRF defined as origin in center of Earth, positive X axis intersecting equator and 0 meridian, positive Z - north pole and Y is complementary to them. For static point on surface of earth (local geographic coordinates) it usually Y directed to zenith and positive Z - toward North in plane of horizon and positive X - toward east. In case of moving vehicle's the positive Y- or pitch axis always points to its left, and the positive Z- or yaw axis always points up, X - the roll axis is pointed straight forward. This one seem to match your case.
Regardless of axis specification, the rotation of vehicle is equivalent of changing matrix corresponding to it. Lets call it transformation matrix. In local coordinates vehicle speed v = {vx,0,0} is a vector collinear to positive X axis. But in world coordinates it is equal to
v' = M*v
where M is a transformation matrix of MRF. As v is change of coordinates per unit of time, then any translations should follow this formula too. There are two ways to solve this , if you're using legacy OpenGL, you have two options:
First: you would start with identity matrix and recreate all transforms in proper order.
Set identity matrix.
Translate by value required (in local cords)
Apply rotations of vehicle
Translate by values of last known position of vehicle.
Either calculate new position of vehicle, knowing transforms, or read that value , by getting matrix from OpenGL (by glGetFloatv(GL_MODELVIEW_MATRIX, ptr)) and extracting offset from it.
Downside of this method is that you have to use functions of OpenGL,where each call of glTranslate or glRotate is creating another matrix that is getting multiplied with other (in opposite order). That's excess math operations and precision of them isn't brilliant either. It can get quite interesting in Chinese manner if you have several frames of reference, especially nested.
Second method is to do all matrix math yourself, for example using some math library like GLM (glm.h) and store matrix for each frame of reference, modifying or regenerating them when needed. You can supply matrix directly to OpenGL even in legacy mode by glLoadMatrix. If you worry about performance, you should know that all modern implementations are done that math on CPU anyway, GPUs do not work with matrix stack anymore, for long time. It can be found quickly by inspecting open-source implementations.
In case of modern, flexible pipeline you don't have glScale, glTranslate, glRotate available at all. Entire matrix stack is deprecated in OpenGL 3. You can do it only in second way, but in this case you would supply matrices to shader program through uniforms.
I'm just wondering if there was any way which one can perform mouse picking detection onto any object. Whether it would be generated object or imported object.
[Idea] -
The idea I have in mind is that, there would be iterations with every object in the scene. Checking if the mouse ray has intersected with an object. For checking the intersection, it would check the mouse picking ray with the triangles that make up the object.
[Pros] -
I believe the benefit of this approach is that, every object can be detected with mouse picking since they all inherit from the detection method.
[Cons] -
I believe this drawbacks are mainly the speed and the method being very expensive. So would need fine tuning of optimization.
[Situation] -
In the past I have read about mouse picking and I too have implemented some basic form of mouse picking. But all those were crappy work which I am not proud of. So again today, I have re-read some of the stuff from online. Nowadays I see alot of mouse picking using color ids and shaders. I'm not too keen for this method. I'm more into a mathematical side.
So here is my mouse picking ray thingamajig.
maths::Vector3 Camera::Raycast(s32 mouse_x, s32 mouse_y)
{
// Normalized Device Coordinates
maths::Vector2 window_size = Application::GetApplication().GetWindowSize();
float x = (2.0f * mouse_x) / window_size.x - 1.0f;
float y = 1.0f;
float z = 1.0f;
maths::Vector3 normalized_device_coordinates_ray = maths::Vector3(x, y, z);
// Homogeneous Clip Coordinates
maths::Vector4 homogeneous_clip_coordinates_ray = maths::Vector4(normalized_device_coordinates_ray.x, normalized_device_coordinates_ray.y, -1.0f, 1.0f);
// 4D Eye (Camera) Coordinates
maths::Vector4 camera_ray = maths::Matrix4x4::Invert(projection_matrix_) * homogeneous_clip_coordinates_ray;
camera_ray = maths::Vector4(camera_ray.x, camera_ray.y, -1.0f, 0.0f);
// 4D World Coordinates
maths::Vector3 world_coordinates_ray = maths::Matrix4x4::Invert(view_matrix_) * camera_ray;
world_coordinates_ray = world_coordinates_ray.Normalize();
return world_coordinates_ray;
}
I have this ray plane intersection function which calculates if a certain ray as intersected with a certain plane. DUH!
Here is the code for that.
bool Camera::RayPlaneIntersection(const maths::Vector3& ray_origin, const maths::Vector3& ray_direction, const maths::Vector3& plane_origin, const maths::Vector3& plane_normal, float& distance)
{
float denominator = plane_normal.Dot(ray_direction);
if (denominator >= 1e-6) // 1e-6 = 0.000001
{
maths::Vector3 vector_subtraction = plane_origin - ray_origin;
distance = vector_subtraction.Dot(plane_normal);
return (distance >= 0);
}
return false;
}
There are many more out there. E.g. Plane Sphere Intersection, Plane Disk Intersection. These things are like very specific. So it feel that is very hard to do mouse picking intersections on a global scale. I feel this way because, for this very RayPlaneIntersection function. What I expect to do with it is, retrieve the objects in the scene and retrieve all the normals for that object (which is a pain in the ass). So now to re-emphasize my question.
Is there already a method out there which I don't know, that does mouse picking in one way for all objects? Or am I just being stupid and not knowing what to do when I have everything?
Thank you. Thank you.
Yes, it is possible to do mouse-picking with OpenGL: you render all the geometry into a special buffer that stores a unique id of the object instead of its shaded color, then you just look at what value you got at the pixel below the mouse and know the object by its id that is written there. However, although it might be simpler, it is not a particularly efficient solution if your camera or geometry constantly moves.
Instead, doing an analytical ray-object intersection is the way to go. However, you don't need to check the intersection of every triangle of every object against the ray. That would be inefficient indeed. You should cull entire objects by their bounding boxes, or even portions of the whole scene. Game engines have their own spacial index data structure to speed-up ray-object intersections. They need it not only for mouse picking, but also for collision-detection, physics simulations, AI, and what-not.
Also note that the geometry used for the picking might be different from the one used for rendering. One example that comes to mind is that of semi-transparent objects.
To give some background to this question, I'm creating a game that needs to know whether the 'Orbit' of an object is within tolerance to another Orbit. To show this, I plot a Torus-shape with a given radius (the tolerance) using the Target Orbit, and now I need to check if the ellipse is within that torus.
I'm getting lost in the equations on Math/Stack exchange so asking for a more specific solution. For clarification, here's an image of the game with the Torus and an Orbit (the red line). Quite simply, I want to check if that red orbit is within that Torus shape.
What I believe I need to do, is plot four points in World-Space on one of those orbits (easy enough to do). I then need to calculate the shortest distance between that point, and the other orbits' ellipse. This is the difficult part. There are several examples out there of finding the shortest distance of a point to an ellipse, but all are 2D and quite difficult to follow.
If that distance is then less than the tolerance for all four points, then in think that equates to the orbit being inside the target torus.
For simplicity, the origin of all of these orbits is always at the world Origin (0, 0, 0) - and my coordinate system is Z-Up. Each orbit has a series of parameters that defines it (Orbital Elements).
Here simple approach:
Sample each orbit to set of N points.
Let points from first orbit be A and from second orbit B.
const int N=36;
float A[N][3],B[N][3];
find 2 closest points
so d=|A[i]-B[i]| is minimal. If d is less or equal to your margin/treshold then orbits are too close to each other.
speed vs. accuracy
Unless you are using some advanced method for #2 then its computation will be O(N^2) which is a bit scary. The bigger the N the better accuracy of result but a lot more time to compute. There are ways how to remedy both. For example:
first sample with small N
when found the closest points sample both orbits again
but only near those points in question (with higher N).
you can recursively increase accuracy by looping #2 until you have desired precision
test d if ellipses are too close to each other
I think I may have a new solution.
Plot the four points on the current orbit (the ellipse).
Project those points onto the plane of the target orbit (the torus).
Using the Target Orbit inclination as the normal of a plane, calculate the angle between each (normalized) point and the argument of periapse
on the target orbit.
Use this angle as the mean anomaly, and compute the equivalent eccentric anomaly.
Use those eccentric anomalies to plot the four points on the target orbit - which should be the nearest points to the other orbit.
Check the distance between those points.
The difficulty here comes from computing the angle and converting it to the anomaly on the other orbit. This should be more accurate and faster than a recursive function though. Will update when I've tried this.
EDIT:
Yep, this works!
// The Four Locations we will use for the checks
TArray<FVector> CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions;
TArray<FVector> TargetOrbit_ProjectedPositions;
CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions.SetNum(4);
TargetOrbit_ProjectedPositions.SetNum(4);
// We first work out the plane of the target orbit.
const FVector Target_LANVector = FVector::ForwardVector.RotateAngleAxis(TargetOrbit.LongitudeAscendingNode, FVector::UpVector); // Vector pointing to Longitude of Ascending Node
const FVector Target_INCVector = FVector::UpVector.RotateAngleAxis(TargetOrbit.Inclination, Target_LANVector); // Vector pointing up the inclination axis (orbit normal)
const FVector Target_AOPVector = Target_LANVector.RotateAngleAxis(TargetOrbit.ArgumentOfPeriapsis, Target_INCVector); // Vector pointing towards the periapse (closest approach)
// Geometric plane of the orbit, using the inclination vector as the normal.
const FPlane ProjectionPlane = FPlane(Target_INCVector, 0.f); // Plane of the orbit. We only need the 'normal', and the plane origin is the Earths core (periapse focal point)
// Plot four points on the current orbit, using an equally-divided eccentric anomaly.
const float ECCAngle = PI / 2.f;
for (int32 i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
// Plot the point, then project it onto the plane
CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i] = PosFromEccAnomaly(i * ECCAngle, CurrentOrbit);
CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i] = FVector::PointPlaneProject(CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i], ProjectionPlane);
// TODO: Distance from the plane is the 'Depth'. If the Depth is > Acceptance Radius, we are outside the torus and can early-out here
// Normalize the point to find it's direction in world-space (origin in our case is always 0,0,0)
const FVector PositionDirectionWS = CurrentOrbit_CheckPositions[i].GetSafeNormal();
// Using the Inclination as the comparison plane - find the angle between the direction of this vector, and the Argument of Periapse vector of the Target orbit
// TODO: we can probably compute this angle once, using the Periapse vectors from each orbit, and just multiply it by the Index 'I'
float Angle = FMath::Acos(FVector::DotProduct(PositionDirectionWS, Target_AOPVector));
// Compute the 'Sign' of the Angle (-180.f - 180.f), using the Cross Product
const FVector Cross = FVector::CrossProduct(PositionDirectionWS, Target_AOPVector);
if (FVector::DotProduct(Cross, Target_INCVector) > 0)
{
Angle = -Angle;
}
// Using the angle directly will give us the position at th eccentric anomaly. We want to take advantage of the Mean Anomaly, and use it as the ecc anomaly
// We can use this to plot a point on the target orbit, as if it was the eccentric anomaly.
Angle = Angle - TargetOrbit.Eccentricity * FMathD::Sin(Angle);
TargetOrbit_ProjectedPositions[i] = PosFromEccAnomaly(Angle, TargetOrbit);}
I hope the comments describe how this works. Finally solved after several months of head-scratching. Thanks all!
I am trying to compute the visibility between two planes or patches.
I have a wireframe of quads. Each quad has a normal vector with X, Y and Z coordinates. Each quad has 4 vertices. Each vertex has X, Y and Z coordinates.
Given two quads, how can I know if there is an occluder or another object in between these two patches (quads).
Therefore, I need to create a method that returns 1 if patches has no occluders or return 0 if patches has occluder.
The method I picture would be something like this:
GLint visibility(Patch i, Patch j) {
GLboolean isVisible;
vector<Patch> allPatches; // can be used to get all patches in the scene
// Check if there is any occluder between patch i and patch j
Some computations here
if(isVisible) {
return 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
I've heard of z-buffer algorithms and the hemicube implementation that would get this done. I already have the form-factors computed. I just need to finish this step to get shadows.
Make sure you give some form of answer with graphs or methods because I am not that genius
I found the solution. Basically I needed to use ray tracing techniques. Throw ray from one patch to another and check if ray intercepts the planes with barycentric equation computation. Once you find the control points you need to check if the control point lies on you quad.
in my opengl application i have a Bézier curve in 3d space and i want to to move an object along it.
everything it's ok a part of rotations: i have some problem in calculating them. in my mind the pipeline should be this:
find point on the Bézier (position vector)
find tangent, normal, binormal (frenet frame)
find the angle between tangent vector and x axis
(the same for normal and y axis and binormal and z axis)
push matrix
translate in position, rotate in angles, draw object
pop matrix
but it does not go as i expected: the rotations seems to be random and does not follow the curve.
any suggestions?
You're going to have problems with the Frenet frame, because, unfortunately, it is undefined when the curve is even momentarily straight
(has vanishing curvature), and it exhibits wild swings in orientation around points
where the osculating plane’s normal has major changes in direction, especially at inflection points, where the normal flips.
I'd recommend using something called a Bishop frame (you can Google it, and find out how to compute it in a discrete setting). It is also referred to as a parallel transport frame or a minimum rotation frame - it has the advantage that the frame is always defined, and it changes orientation in a controlled way.
I don't think the problems with Frenet frames necessarily explain the problems you are having. You should start with some easy test cases - Bezier curves that are confined to the XY plane, for example, and step through your calculations until you find what's wrong.
Instead of computing angles just push the frame into the modelview matrix. Normal, Binormal and Tangent go in the upper left 3x3 of the matrix, translation in the 4th column and element 4,4 is 1. Instead of Frenet frame use the already mentioned Bishop frame. So in code:
// assuming you manage your curve in a (opaque) struct Bezier
struct BezierCurve;
typedef float vec3[3];
void bezierEvaluate(BezierCurve *bezier, float t, vec3 normal, vec3 binormal, vec3 tangent, vec3 pos);
void apply_bezier_transform(Bezier *bezier, float t)
{
float M[16]; // OpenGL uses column major ordering
// and this code is a excellent example why it does so:
bezierEvaluate(bezier, t, &M[0], &M[4], &M[8], &M[12]);
M[3] = M[7] = M[11] = 0.;
M[15] = 1.;
glMultMatrixf(M);
}