I followed a paper called "GPU Based Algorithms for Terrain Texturing" and it says the following:
The main algorithm to apply triplanar texturing is fairly simple.
First, we check whether the slope is relatively large in the same way
that we do with slope based texturing. These regions with high slope
will be the only regions aected by the algorithm. We then check what
the larger component of the normal is, out of x and z. If x is the
larger component, we use the geometry z coordinate as the texture
coordinate s, and the geometry y coordinate as the texture coordinate
t. If z is the larger component, we use the geometry x coordinate as
the texture coordinate s, and the geometry y coordinate as the texture
coordinate t.
So I tried to implement it. This is my heightmap:
Note that I added white lines in the borders just for the experiment, so now I have maximum-height walls surrounding my map.
Now following the articles, here's the implementation in the vertex shader:
#version 430
uniform mat4 ProjectionMatrix;
uniform mat4 CameraMatrix;
uniform vec3 scale;
layout(location = 0) in vec3 vertex;
layout(location = 1) in vec3 normal;
out vec3 fsVertex;
out vec3 fsNormal;
out vec2 fsUvs;
void main()
{
fsVertex = vertex;
fsNormal = normalize(normal);
if(fsNormal.y < 0.75) {
if(fsNormal.x > fsNormal.z)
fsUvs = vertex.zy * scale.zy;
else
fsUvs = vertex.xy * scale.xy;
}
else
fsUvs = vertex.xz * scale.xz;
gl_Position = ProjectionMatrix * CameraMatrix * vec4(vertex * scale, 1.0);
}
Here's the fragment shader, if it helps.
This is what I get:
Here's a further look, for proportion.
The top and left walls (of the heightmap) are rendered ok, and the bottom and right walls still suffer from stretching. I also get these weird stretches spots next to the beginning of the walls.
What could be the cause of this?
If you want to check if the normal's x or z coordinate are longer, you should use the abs function:
if(abs(fsNormal.x) > abs(fsNormal.z))
Furthermore, the y > 0.75 seems like a coarse approximation, which is probably good enough in most cases. Actually, the maximum of abs(x), abs(y), abs(z) gives you the correct plane.
Here is a DX11/HLSL implementation i used. GLSL conversion should be easy.
With the exponent value you can tune the blending speed at the borders. i used something like 3.
float3 SampleTriplanarTexture(Texture2D<float4> tex1, Texture2D<float4> tex2, Texture2D<float4> tex3, float3 normal, float3 pos, float exponent)
{
//triplanar projection
float mXY = pow(abs(normal.z), exponent);
float mXZ = pow(abs(normal.y), exponent);
float mYZ = pow(abs(normal.x), exponent);
float total = 1.0f / (mXY + mXZ + mYZ);
mXY *= total;
mXZ *= total;
mYZ *= total;
return tex1.SampleLevel(linearSampler2, pos.xz, 0) * mXZ +
tex2.SampleLevel(linearSampler2, pos.xy, 0) * mXY +
tex3.SampleLevel(linearSampler2, pos.yz, 0) * mYZ;
}
Related
I am trying to implement a simple artificial 2D lighting. I am not using an algorithm like Phong's. However, I am having some difficulty in ensuring that my lighting do not stretch/squeeze whenever the window resize. Any tips and suggestions will be appreciated. I have tried converting my radius into a vec2 so that I can scale them accordingly based on the aspect ratio, however it doesnt work properly. Also, I am aware that my code is not the most efficient, any feedback is also appreciated as I am still learning! :D
I have an orthographic projection matrix transforming the light position so that it will be at the correct spot in the viewport, this fixed the position but not the radius (as I am calculating per fragment). How would I go about transforming the radius based on the aspect ratio?
void LightSystem::Update(const OrthographicCamera& camera)
{
std::vector<LightComponent> lights;
for (auto& entity : m_Entities)
{
auto& light = g_ECSManager.GetComponent<LightComponent>(entity);
auto& trans = g_ECSManager.GetComponent<TransformComponent>(entity);
if (light.lightEnabled)
{
light.pos = trans.Position;
glm::mat4 viewProjMat = camera.GetViewProjectionMatrix();
light.pos = viewProjMat * glm::vec4(light.pos, 1.f);
// Need to store all the light atrributes in an array
lights.emplace_back(light);
}
// Create a function in Render2D.cpp, pass all the arrays as a uniform variable to the shader, call this function here
glm::vec2 res{ camera.GetWidth(), camera.GetHeight() };
Renderer2D::DrawLight(lights, camera, res);
}
}
Here is my shader:
#type fragment
#version 330 core
layout (location = 0) out vec4 color;
#define MAX_LIGHTS 10
uniform struct Light
{
vec4 colour;
vec3 position;
float radius;
float intensity;
} allLights[MAX_LIGHTS];
in vec4 v_Color;
in vec2 v_TexCoord;
in float v_TexIndex;
in float v_TilingFactor;
in vec4 fragmentPosition;
uniform sampler2D u_Textures[32];
uniform vec4 u_ambientColour;
uniform int numLights;
uniform vec2 resolution;
vec4 calculateLight(Light light)
{
float lightDistance = length(distance(fragmentPosition.xy, light.position.xy));
//float ar = resolution.x / resolution.y;
if (lightDistance >= light.radius)
{
return vec4(0, 0, 0, 1); //outside of radius make it black
}
return light.intensity * (1 - lightDistance / light.radius) * light.colour;
}
void main()
{
vec4 texColor = v_Color;
vec4 netLightColour = vec4(0, 0, 0, 1);
if (numLights == 0)
color = texColor;
else
{
for(int i = 0; i < numLights; ++i) //Loop through lights
netLightColour += calculateLight(allLights[i]) + u_ambientColour;
color = texColor * netLightColour;
}
}
You must use an orthographic projection matrix in the vertex shader. Modify the clip space position through the projection matrix.
Alternatively, consider the aspect ratio when calculating the distance to the light:
float aspectRatio = resolution.x/resolution.y;
vec2 pos = fragmentPosition.xy * vec2(aspectRatio, 1.0);
float lightDistance = length(distance(pos.xy, light.position.xy));
I'm going to compile all the answers for my question, as I had done a bad job in asking and everything turned out to be a mess.
As the other answers suggest, first I had to use an orthographic projection matrix to ensure that the light source position was displayed at the correct position in the viewport.
Next, from the way I did my lighting, the projection matrix earlier would not fix the stretch effect as my light wasn't an actual circle object made with actual vertices. I had to turn radius into a vec2 type, representing the radius vectors along x and y axis. This is so that I can then modify the vectors based on the aspect ratio:
if (aspectRatio > 1.0)
light.radius.x /= aspectRatio;
else
light.radius.x /= aspectRatio;
I had posted another question here, to modify my lighting algorithm to support an ellipse shape. This allowed me to then perform the scalings needed to counter the stretching along x/y axis whenever my aspect ratio changed. Thank you all for the answers.
Im currently in the process of writing a Voxel Cone Tracing Rendering Engine with C++ and OpenGL. Everything is going rather fine, except that I'm getting rather strange results for wider cone angles.
Right now, for the purposes of testing, all I am doing is shoot out one singular cone perpendicularly to the fragment normal. I am only calculating 'indirect light'. For reference, here is the rather simple Fragment Shader I'm using:
#version 450 core
out vec4 FragColor;
in vec3 pos_fs;
in vec3 nrm_fs;
uniform sampler3D tex3D;
vec3 indirectDiffuse();
vec3 voxelTraceCone(const vec3 from, vec3 direction);
void main()
{
FragColor = vec4(0, 0, 0, 1);
FragColor.rgb += indirectDiffuse();
}
vec3 indirectDiffuse(){
// singular cone in direction of the normal
vec3 ret = voxelTraceCone(pos_fs, nrm);
return ret;
}
vec3 voxelTraceCone(const vec3 origin, vec3 dir) {
float max_dist = 1f;
dir = normalize(dir);
float current_dist = 0.01f;
float apperture_angle = 0.01f; //Angle in Radians.
vec3 color = vec3(0.0f);
float occlusion = 0.0f;
float vox_size = 128.0f; //voxel map size
while(current_dist < max_dist && occlusion < 1) {
//Get cone diameter (tan = cathetus / cathetus)
float current_coneDiameter = 2.0f * current_dist * tan(apperture_angle * 0.5f);
//Get mipmap level which should be sampled according to the cone diameter
float vlevel = log2(current_coneDiameter * vox_size);
vec3 pos_worldspace = origin + dir * current_dist;
vec3 pos_texturespace = (pos_worldspace + vec3(1.0f)) * 0.5f; //[-1,1] Coordinates to [0,1]
vec4 voxel = textureLod(tex3D, pos_texturespace, vlevel); //get voxel
vec3 color_read = voxel.rgb;
float occlusion_read = voxel.a;
color = occlusion*color + (1 - occlusion) * occlusion_read * color_read;
occlusion = occlusion + (1 - occlusion) * occlusion_read;
float dist_factor = 0.3f; //Lower = better results but higher performance hit
current_dist += current_coneDiameter * dist_factor;
}
return color;
}
The tex3D uniform is the voxel 3d-texture.
Under a regular Phong shader (under which the voxel values are calculated) the scene looks like this:
For reference, this is what the voxel map (tex3D) (128x128x128) looks like when visualized:
Now we get to the actual problem I'm having. If I apply the shader above to the scene, I get following results:
For very small cone angles (apperture_angle=0.01) I get roughly what you might expect: The voxelized scene is essentially 'reflected' perpendicularly on each surface:
Now if I increase the apperture angle to, for example 30 degrees (apperture_angle=0.52), I get this really strange 'wavy'-looking result:
I would have expected a much more similar result to the earlier one, just less specular. Instead I get mostly the outline of each object reflected in a specular manner with some occasional pixels inside the outline. Considering this is meant to be the 'indirect lighting' in the scene, it won't look exactly good even if I add the direct light.
I have tried different values for max_dist, current_dist etc. aswell as shooting several cones instead of just one. The result remains similar, if not worse.
Does someone know what I'm doing wrong here, and how to get actual remotely realistic indirect light?
I suspect that the textureLod function somehow yields the wrong result for any LOD levels above 0, but I haven't been able to confirm this.
The Mipmaps of the 3D texture were not being generated correctly.
In addition there was no hardcap on vlevel leading to all textureLod calls returning a #000000 color that accessed any mipmaplevel above 1.
Initial situation
I want to visualize simulation data in openGL.
My data consists of particle positions (x, y, z) where each particle has some properties (like density, temperature, ...) which will be used for coloring. Those (SPH) particles (100k to several millions), grouped together, actually represent planets, in case you wonder. I want to render those particles as small 3D spheres and add ambient, diffuse and specular lighting.
Status quo and questions
In MY case: In which coordinate frame do I do the lightning calculations? Which way is the "best" to pass the various components through the pipeline?
I saw that it is common to do it in view space which is also very intuitive. However: The normals at the different fragment positions are calculated in the fragment shader in clip space coordinates (see appended fragment shader). Can I actually convert them "back" into view space to do the lightning calculations in view space for all the fragments? Would there be any advantage compared to doing it in clip space?
It would be easier to get the normals in view space if I would use meshes for each sphere but I think with several million particles this would decrease performance drastically, so better do it with sphere intersection, would you agree?
PS: I don't need a model matrix since all the particles are already in place.
//VERTEX SHADER
#version 330 core
layout (location = 0) in vec3 position;
layout (location = 2) in float density;
uniform float radius;
uniform vec3 lightPos;
uniform vec3 viewPos;
out vec4 lightDir;
out vec4 viewDir;
out vec4 viewPosition;
out vec4 posClip;
out float vertexColor;
// transformation matrices
uniform mat4 model;
uniform mat4 view;
uniform mat4 projection;
void main()
{
lightDir = projection * view * vec4(lightPos - position, 1.0f);
viewDir = projection * view * vec4(viewPos - position, 1.0f);
viewPosition = projection * view * vec4(lightPos, 1.0f);
posClip = projection * view * vec4(position, 1.0f);
gl_Position = posClip;
gl_PointSize = radius;
vertexColor = density;
}
I know that projective divion happens for the gl_Position variable, does that actually happen to ALL vec4's which are passed from the vertex to the fragment shader? If not, maybe the calculations in the fragment shader would be wrong?
And the fragment shader where the normals and diffuse/specular lightning calculations in clip space:
//FRAGMENT SHADER
#version 330 core
in float vertexColor;
in vec4 lightDir;
in vec4 viewDir;
in vec4 posClip;
in vec4 viewPosition;
uniform vec3 lightColor;
vec4 colormap(float x); // returns vec4(r, g, b, a)
out vec4 vFragColor;
void main(void)
{
// AMBIENT LIGHT
float ambientStrength = 0.0;
vec3 ambient = ambientStrength * lightColor;
// Normal calculation done in clip space (first from texture (gl_PointCoord 0 to 1) coord to NDC( -1 to 1))
vec3 normal;
normal.xy = gl_PointCoord * 2.0 - vec2(1.0); // transform from 0->1 point primitive coords to NDC -1->1
float mag = dot(normal.xy, normal.xy); // sqrt(x=1) = sqrt(x)
if (mag > 1.0) // discard fragments outside sphere
discard;
normal.z = sqrt(1.0 - mag); // because x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1
// DIFFUSE LIGHT
float diff = max(0.0, dot(vec3(lightDir), normal));
vec3 diffuse = diff * lightColor;
// SPECULAR LIGHT
float specularStrength = 0.1;
vec3 viewDir = normalize(vec3(viewPosition) - vec3(posClip));
vec3 reflectDir = reflect(-vec3(lightDir), normal);
float shininess = 64;
float spec = pow(max(dot(vec3(viewDir), vec3(reflectDir)), 0.0), shininess);
vec3 specular = specularStrength * spec * lightColor;
vFragColor = colormap(vertexColor / 8) * vec4(ambient + diffuse + specular, 1);
}
Now this actually "kind of" works but i have the feeling that also the sides of the sphere which do NOT face the light source are being illuminated, which shouldn't happen. How can I fix this?
Some weird effect: In this moment the light source is actually BEHIND the left planet (it just peaks out a little bit at the top left), bit still there are diffuse and specular effects going on. This side should be actually pretty dark! =(
Also at this moment I get some glError: 1282 error in the fragment shader and I don't know where it comes from since the shader program actually compiles and runs, any suggestions? :)
The things that you are drawing aren't actually spheres. They just look like them from afar. This is absolutely ok if you are fine with that. If you need geometrically correct spheres (with correct sizes and with a correct projection), you need to do proper raycasting. This seems to be a comprehensive guide on this topic.
1. What coordinate system?
In the end, it is up to you. The coordinate system just needs to fulfill some requirements. It must be angle-preserving (because lighting is all about angles). And if you need distance-based attenuation, it should also be distance-preserving. The world and the view coordinate systems usually fulfill these requirements. Clip space is not suited for lighting calculations as neither angles nor distances are preserved. Furthermore, gl_PointCoord is in none of the usual coordinate systems. It is its own coordinate system and you should only use it together with other coordinate systems if you know their relation.
2. Meshes or what?
Meshes are absolutely not suited to render spheres. As mentioned above, raycasting or some screen-space approximation are better choices. Here is an example shader that I used in my projects:
#version 330
out vec4 result;
in fData
{
vec4 toPixel; //fragment coordinate in particle coordinates
vec4 cam; //camera position in particle coordinates
vec4 color; //sphere color
float radius; //sphere radius
} frag;
uniform mat4 p; //projection matrix
void main(void)
{
vec3 v = frag.toPixel.xyz - frag.cam.xyz;
vec3 e = frag.cam.xyz;
float ev = dot(e, v);
float vv = dot(v, v);
float ee = dot(e, e);
float rr = frag.radius * frag.radius;
float radicand = ev * ev - vv * (ee - rr);
if(radicand < 0)
discard;
float rt = sqrt(radicand);
float lambda = max(0, (-ev - rt) / vv); //first intersection on the ray
float lambda2 = (-ev + rt) / vv; //second intersection on the ray
if(lambda2 < lambda) //if the first intersection is behind the camera
discard;
vec3 hit = lambda * v; //intersection point
vec3 normal = (frag.cam.xyz + hit) / frag.radius;
vec4 proj = p * vec4(hit, 1); //intersection point in clip space
gl_FragDepth = ((gl_DepthRange.diff * proj.z / proj.w) + gl_DepthRange.near + gl_DepthRange.far) / 2.0;
vec3 vNormalized = -normalize(v);
float nDotL = dot(vNormalized, normal);
vec3 c = frag.color.rgb * nDotL + vec3(0.5, 0.5, 0.5) * pow(nDotL, 120);
result = vec4(c, frag.color.a);
}
3. Perspective division
Perspective division is not applied to your attributes. The GPU does perspective division on the data that you pass via gl_Position on the way to transforming them to screen space. But you will never actually see this perspective-divided position unless you do it yourself.
4. Light in the dark
This might be the result of you mixing different coordinate systems or doing lighting calculations in clip space. Btw, the specular part is usually not multiplied by the material color. This is light that gets reflected directly at the surface. It does not penetrate the surface (which would absorb some colors depending on the material). That's why those highlights are usually white (or whatever light color you have), even on black objects.
I'm implementing SSAO in OpenGL, following this tutorial: Jhon Chapman SSAO
Basically the technique described uses an Hemispheric kernel which is oriented along the fragment's normal. The view space z position of the sample is then compared to its screen space depth buffer value.
If the value in the depth buffer is higher, it means the sample ended up in a geometry so this fragment should be occluded.
The goal of this technique is to get rid of the classic implementation artifact where objects flat faces are greyed out.
I've have the same implementation with 2 small differencies
I'm not using a Noise texture to rotate my kernel, so I have banding artifacts, that's fine for now
I don't have access to a buffer with Per-pixel normals, so I have to compute my normal and TBN matrix only using the depth buffer.
The algorithm seems to be working fine, I can see the fragments being occluded, BUT I still have my faces greyed out...
IMO it's coming from the way I'm calculating my TBN matrix. The normals look OK but something must be wrong as my kernel doesn't seem to be properly aligned causing samples to end up in the faces.
Screenshots are with a Kernel of 8 samples and a radius of .1. the first is only the result of SSAO pass and the second one is the debug render of the generated normals.
Here is the code for the function that computes the Normal and TBN Matrix
mat3 computeTBNMatrixFromDepth(in sampler2D depthTex, in vec2 uv)
{
// Compute the normal and TBN matrix
float ld = -getLinearDepth(depthTex, uv);
vec3 x = vec3(uv.x, 0., ld);
vec3 y = vec3(0., uv.y, ld);
x = dFdx(x);
y = dFdy(y);
x = normalize(x);
y = normalize(y);
vec3 normal = normalize(cross(x, y));
return mat3(x, y, normal);
}
And the SSAO shader
#include "helper.glsl"
in vec2 vertTexcoord;
uniform sampler2D depthTex;
const int MAX_KERNEL_SIZE = 8;
uniform vec4 gKernel[MAX_KERNEL_SIZE];
// Kernel Radius in view space (meters)
const float KERNEL_RADIUS = .1;
uniform mat4 cameraProjectionMatrix;
uniform mat4 cameraProjectionMatrixInverse;
out vec4 FragColor;
void main()
{
// Get the current depth of the current pixel from the depth buffer (stored in the red channel)
float originDepth = texture(depthTex, vertTexcoord).r;
// Debug linear depth. Depth buffer is in the range [1.0];
float oLinearDepth = getLinearDepth(depthTex, vertTexcoord);
// Compute the view space position of this point from its depth value
vec4 viewport = vec4(0,0,1,1);
vec3 originPosition = getViewSpaceFromWindow(cameraProjectionMatrix, cameraProjectionMatrixInverse, viewport, vertTexcoord, originDepth);
mat3 lookAt = computeTBNMatrixFromDepth(depthTex, vertTexcoord);
vec3 normal = lookAt[2];
float occlusion = 0.;
for (int i=0; i<MAX_KERNEL_SIZE; i++)
{
// We align the Kernel Hemisphere on the fragment normal by multiplying all samples by the TBN
vec3 samplePosition = lookAt * gKernel[i].xyz;
// We want the sample position in View Space and we scale it with the kernel radius
samplePosition = originPosition + samplePosition * KERNEL_RADIUS;
// Now we need to get sample position in screen space
vec4 sampleOffset = vec4(samplePosition.xyz, 1.0);
sampleOffset = cameraProjectionMatrix * sampleOffset;
sampleOffset.xyz /= sampleOffset.w;
// Now to get the depth buffer value at the projected sample position
sampleOffset.xyz = sampleOffset.xyz * 0.5 + 0.5;
// Now can get the linear depth of the sample
float sampleOffsetLinearDepth = -getLinearDepth(depthTex, sampleOffset.xy);
// Now we need to do a range check to make sure that object
// outside of the kernel radius are not taken into account
float rangeCheck = abs(originPosition.z - sampleOffsetLinearDepth) < KERNEL_RADIUS ? 1.0 : 0.0;
// If the fragment depth is in front so it's occluding
occlusion += (sampleOffsetLinearDepth >= samplePosition.z ? 1.0 : 0.0) * rangeCheck;
}
occlusion = 1.0 - (occlusion / MAX_KERNEL_SIZE);
FragColor = vec4(vec3(occlusion), 1.0);
}
Update 1
This variation of the TBN calculation function gives the same results
mat3 computeTBNMatrixFromDepth(in sampler2D depthTex, in vec2 uv)
{
// Compute the normal and TBN matrix
float ld = -getLinearDepth(depthTex, uv);
vec3 a = vec3(uv, ld);
vec3 x = vec3(uv.x + dFdx(uv.x), uv.y, ld + dFdx(ld));
vec3 y = vec3(uv.x, uv.y + dFdy(uv.y), ld + dFdy(ld));
//x = dFdx(x);
//y = dFdy(y);
//x = normalize(x);
//y = normalize(y);
vec3 normal = normalize(cross(x - a, y - a));
vec3 first_axis = cross(normal, vec3(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f));
vec3 second_axis = cross(first_axis, normal);
return mat3(normalize(first_axis), normalize(second_axis), normal);
}
I think the problem is probably that you are mixing coordinate systems. You are using texture coordinates in combination with the linear depth. You can imagine two vertical surfaces facing slightly to the left of the screen. Both have the same angle from the vertical plane and should thus have the same normal right?
But let's then imagine that one of these surfaces are much further from the camera. Since fFdx/fFdy functions basically tell you the difference from the neighbor pixel, the surface far away from the camera will have greater linear depth difference over one pixel, than the surface close to the camera. But the uv.x / uv.y derivative will have the same value. That means that you will get different normals depending on the distance from the camera.
The solution is to calculate the view coordinate and use the derivative of that to calculate the normal.
vec3 viewFromDepth(in sampler2D depthTex, in vec2 uv, in vec3 view)
{
float ld = -getLinearDepth(depthTex, uv);
/// I assume ld is negative for fragments in front of the camera
/// not sure how getLinearDepth is implemented
vec3 z_scaled_view = (view / view.z) * ld;
return z_scaled_view;
}
mat3 computeTBNMatrixFromDepth(in sampler2D depthTex, in vec2 uv, in vec3 view)
{
vec3 view = viewFromDepth(depthTex, uv);
vec3 view_normal = normalize(cross(dFdx(view), dFdy(view)));
vec3 first_axis = cross(view_normal, vec3(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f));
vec3 second_axis = cross(first_axis, view_normal);
return mat3(view_normal, normalize(first_axis), normalize(second_axis));
}
I'm writing a clone of Wolfenstein 3D using only core OpenGL 3.3 for university and I've run into a bit of a problem with the sprites, namely getting them to scale correctly based on distance.
From what I can tell, previous versions of OGL would in fact do this for you, but that functionality has been removed, and all my attempts to reimplement it have resulted in complete failure.
My current implementation is passable at distances, not too shabby at mid range and bizzare at close range.
The main problem (I think) is that I have no understanding of the maths I'm using.
The target size of the sprite is slightly bigger than the viewport, so it should 'go out of the picture' as you get right up to it, but it doesn't. It gets smaller, and that's confusing me a lot.
I recorded a small video of this, in case words are not enough. (Mine is on the right)
Can anyone direct me to where I'm going wrong, and explain why?
Code:
C++
// setup
glPointParameteri(GL_POINT_SPRITE_COORD_ORIGIN, GL_LOWER_LEFT);
glEnable(GL_PROGRAM_POINT_SIZE);
// Drawing
glUseProgram(StaticsProg);
glBindVertexArray(statixVAO);
glUniformMatrix4fv(uStatixMVP, 1, GL_FALSE, glm::value_ptr(MVP));
glDrawArrays(GL_POINTS, 0, iNumSprites);
Vertex Shader
#version 330 core
layout(location = 0) in vec2 pos;
layout(location = 1) in int spriteNum_;
flat out int spriteNum;
uniform mat4 MVP;
const float constAtten = 0.9;
const float linearAtten = 0.6;
const float quadAtten = 0.001;
void main() {
spriteNum = spriteNum_;
gl_Position = MVP * vec4(pos.x + 1, pos.y, 0.5, 1); // Note: I have fiddled the MVP so that z is height rather than depth, since this is how I learned my vectors.
float dist = distance(gl_Position, vec4(0,0,0,1));
float attn = constAtten / ((1 + linearAtten * dist) * (1 + quadAtten * dist * dist));
gl_PointSize = 768.0 * attn;
}
Fragment Shader
#version 330 core
flat in int spriteNum;
out vec4 color;
uniform sampler2DArray Sprites;
void main() {
color = texture(Sprites, vec3(gl_PointCoord.s, gl_PointCoord.t, spriteNum));
if (color.a < 0.2)
discard;
}
First of all, I don't really understand why you use pos.x + 1.
Next, like Nathan said, you shouldn't use the clip-space point, but the eye-space point. This means you only use the modelview-transformed point (without projection) to compute the distance.
uniform mat4 MV; //modelview matrix
vec3 eyePos = MV * vec4(pos.x, pos.y, 0.5, 1);
Furthermore I don't completely understand your attenuation computation. At the moment a higher constAtten value means less attenuation. Why don't you just use the model that OpenGL's deprecated point parameters used:
float dist = length(eyePos); //since the distance to (0,0,0) is just the length
float attn = inversesqrt(constAtten + linearAtten*dist + quadAtten*dist*dist);
EDIT: But in general I think this attenuation model is not a good way, because often you just want the sprite to keep its object space size, which you have quite to fiddle with the attenuation factors to achieve that I think.
A better way is to input its object space size and just compute the screen space size in pixels (which is what gl_PointSize actually is) based on that using the current view and projection setup:
uniform mat4 MV; //modelview matrix
uniform mat4 P; //projection matrix
uniform float spriteWidth; //object space width of sprite (maybe an per-vertex in)
uniform float screenWidth; //screen width in pixels
vec4 eyePos = MV * vec4(pos.x, pos.y, 0.5, 1);
vec4 projCorner = P * vec4(0.5*spriteWidth, 0.5*spriteWidth, eyePos.z, eyePos.w);
gl_PointSize = screenWidth * projCorner.x / projCorner.w;
gl_Position = P * eyePos;
This way the sprite always gets the size it would have when rendered as a textured quad with a width of spriteWidth.
EDIT: Of course you also should keep in mind the limitations of point sprites. A point sprite is clipped based of its center position. This means when its center moves out of the screen, the whole sprite disappears. With large sprites (like in your case, I think) this might really be a problem.
Therefore I would rather suggest you to use simple textured quads. This way you circumvent this whole attenuation problem, as the quads are just transformed like every other 3d object. You only need to implement the rotation toward the viewer, which can either be done on the CPU or in the vertex shader.
Based on Christian Rau's answer (last edit), I implemented a geometry shader that builds a billboard in ViewSpace, which seems to solve all my problems:
Here are the shaders: (Note that I have fixed the alignment issue that required the original shader to add 1 to x)
Vertex Shader
#version 330 core
layout (location = 0) in vec4 gridPos;
layout (location = 1) in int spriteNum_in;
flat out int spriteNum;
// simple pass-thru to the geometry generator
void main() {
gl_Position = gridPos;
spriteNum = spriteNum_in;
}
Geometry Shader
#version 330 core
layout (points) in;
layout (triangle_strip, max_vertices = 4) out;
flat in int spriteNum[];
smooth out vec3 stp;
uniform mat4 Projection;
uniform mat4 View;
void main() {
// Put us into screen space.
vec4 pos = View * gl_in[0].gl_Position;
int snum = spriteNum[0];
// Bottom left corner
gl_Position = pos;
gl_Position.x += 0.5;
gl_Position = Projection * gl_Position;
stp = vec3(0, 0, snum);
EmitVertex();
// Top left corner
gl_Position = pos;
gl_Position.x += 0.5;
gl_Position.y += 1;
gl_Position = Projection * gl_Position;
stp = vec3(0, 1, snum);
EmitVertex();
// Bottom right corner
gl_Position = pos;
gl_Position.x -= 0.5;
gl_Position = Projection * gl_Position;
stp = vec3(1, 0, snum);
EmitVertex();
// Top right corner
gl_Position = pos;
gl_Position.x -= 0.5;
gl_Position.y += 1;
gl_Position = Projection * gl_Position;
stp = vec3(1, 1, snum);
EmitVertex();
EndPrimitive();
}
Fragment Shader
#version 330 core
smooth in vec3 stp;
out vec4 colour;
uniform sampler2DArray Sprites;
void main() {
colour = texture(Sprites, stp);
if (colour.a < 0.2)
discard;
}
I don't think you want to base the distance calculation in your vertex shader on the projected position. Instead just calculate the position relative to your view, i.e. use the model-view matrix instead of the model-view-projection one.
Think about it this way -- in projected space, as an object gets closer to you, its distance in the horizontal and vertical directions becomes exaggerated. You can see this in the way the lamps move away from the center toward the top of the screen as you approach them. That exaggeration of those dimensions is going to make the distance get larger when you get really close, which is why you're seeing the object shrink.
At least in OpenGL ES 2.0, there is a maximum size limitation on gl_PointSize imposed by the OpenGL implementation. You can query the size with ALIASED_POINT_SIZE_RANGE.