I am looking for a way to "fill" three-dimensional geometry with color, and quite possibly a texture at some time later on.
Suppose for a moment that you could physically phase your head into a concrete wall, logically you would see only darkness. In OpenGL, however, when you do this the world is naturally hollow and transparent due to culling and because of how the geometry is drawn. I want to simulate the darkness/color/texture within it instead.
I know some games do this by overlaying a texture/color directly over the hud--therefore blinding the player.
Is there another way to do this, though? Suppose the player is standing half in water; they can partially see below the waves. How would you fill it to prevent them from being able to see clearly below what is now half of their screen?
What is this concept even called?
A problem with the texture-in-front-of-the-camera method is a texture is 2D but you want to visualize a slice of a 3D volume. For the first thing you talk about, the head-inside-a-wall idea, I'll point you to "3D/volume texturing". For standing-half-in-water, you're after "volume rendering" with "absorption" (discussed by #user3670102).
3D texturing
The general idea here is you have some function that defines a colour everywhere in a 3D space, not just on a surface (as with regular texture mapping). This is nice because you can put geometry anywhere and colour it in the fragment shader based on the 3D position. Think of taking a slice through the volume and looking at the intersection colour.
For the head-in-a-wall effect you could draw a full screen polygon in front of the player (right on the near clipping plane, although you might want to push this forwards a bit so its not too small) and colour it based on a 3D function. Now it'll look properly solid and move ad the player does and not like you've cheaply stuck a texture over the screen.
The actual function could be defined with a 3D texture but that's very memory intensive. Instead, you could look into either procedural 3D colour (a procedural wood or brick shader is pretty common as an example). Even assuming a 2D texture is "extruded" through the volume will work, or better yet weight 3 textures (one for each axis) based on the angle of the intersection/surface you're drawing on.
Detecting an intersection with the geometry and the near clipping plane is probably the hardest bit here. If I were you I'd look at tricks with the z-buffer and make sure to draw everything as solid non-self-intersecting geometry. A simple idea might be to draw back faces only after drawing everything with front faces. If you can see back faces that part of the near plane must be inside something. For these pixels you could calculate the near clipping plane position in world space and apply a 3D texture. Though I suspect there are faster ways than drawing everything twice.
In reality there would probably be no light getting to what you see and it should be black, but I guess just ignore this and render the colour directly, unlit.
Absorption
This sounds way harder than it actually is. If you have some transparent solid that's all the one colour ("homogeneous") then it removes light the further light has to travel through it. Think of many alpha-transparent surfaces, take the limit and you have an exponential. The light remaining is close to 1/exp(dist) or exp(-dist). Google "Beer's Law". From here,
vec3 Absorbance = WaterColor * WaterDensity * -WaterDepth;
vec3 Transmittance = exp(Absorbance);
A great way to find distances through something is to render the back faces (or seabed/water floor) with additive blending using a shader that draws distance to a floating point texture. Then switch to subtractive blending and render all the front faces (or water surface). You're left with a texture containing distances/depth for the above equation.
Volume Rendering
Combining the two ideas, the material is both a transparent solid but the colour (and maybe density) varies throughout the volume. This starts to get pretty complicated if you have large amounts of data and want it to be fast. A straight forward way to render this is to numerically integrate a ray through the 3D texture (or procedural function, whatever you're using), at the same time applying the absorption function. A basic brute force Euler integration might start a ray for each pixel on the near plane, then march forwards at even distances. Over each step while you march you assume the colour remains constant and apply absorption, keeping track of how much light you have left. A quick google brings up this.
This seems related to looking through what's called "participating media". On the less extreme end, you'd have light fog, or smoky haze. In the middle could be, say, dirty water. And the extreme case would be your head-in-the-wall example.
Doing this in a physically accurate way isn't trivial, because the darkening effect is more pronounced when the thickness of the media is greater.
But you can fake this by making some assumptions and giving the interior geometry (under the water or inside the wall) darker by reduced lighting or using darker colors. If you care about the depth effect, look at OpenGL and fog.
For underwater, you can make the back side of the water a semi-transparent color that causes stuff above it to have a suitable change in color.
If you really want to go nuts with accuracy, look at Kajia's Rendering Equation. That covers everything (including stuff that glows), but generally needs simplification and approximations to be more useful.
Related
I have a 3D texture containing voxels and I am ray tracing and, everytime i hit a voxel i display the color. The result is nice but you can clearly see the different blocks being separated by one another. i would like to get a smoothing color going from one voxel to the other so I was thinking of doing interpolation.
My problem is that when I hit the voxel I am not sure which other neighbouring voxels to extract the colors from because i don't know if the voxel is part of a wall parallel to some axis or if it is a floor or an isolate part of the scene. Ideally I would have to get, for every voxel, the 26 neighbouring voxels, but that can be quite expensive. Is there any fast and approximate solution for such thing?
PS: I notice that in minecraft there is smooth shadows that form when voxels are placed near each other, maybe that uses a technique that might be adapted for this purpose?
I'm implementing a deferred lighting mechanism in my OpenGL graphics engine following this tutorial. It works fine, I don't get into trouble with that.
When it comes to the point lights, it says to render spheres around the lights to only pass those pixels throught the lighting shader, that might be affected by the light. There are some Issues with that method concerning cullface and camera position precisely explained here. To solve those, the tutorial uses the stencil-test.
I doubt the efficiency of that method which leads me to my first Question:
Wouldn't it be much better to draw a circle representing the light-sphere?
A sphere always looks like a circle on the screen, no matter from which perspective you're lokking at it. The task would be to determine the screenposition and -scaling of the circle. This method would have 3 advantages:
No cullface-issue
No camereposition-in-lightsphere-issue
Much more efficient (amount of vertices severely reduced + no stencil test)
Are there any disadvantages using this technique?
My second Question deals with implementing mentioned method. The circles' center position could be easily calculated as always:
vec4 screenpos = modelViewProjectionMatrix * vec4(pos, 1.0);
vec2 centerpoint = vec2(screenpos / screenpos.w);
But now how to calculate the scaling of the resulting circle?
It should be dependent on the distance (camera to light) and somehow the perspective view.
I don't think that would work. The point of using spheres is they are used as light volumes and not just circles. We want to apply lighting to those polygons in the scene that are inside the light volume. As the scene is rendered, the depth buffer is written to. This data is used by the light volume render step to apply lighting correctly. If it were just a circle, you would have no way of knowing whether A and C should be illuminated or not, even if the circle was projected to a correct depth.
I didn't read the whole thing, but i think i understand general idea of this method.
Won't help much. You will still have issues if you move the camera so that the circle will be behind the near plane - in this case none of the fragments will be generated, and the light will "disappear"
Lights described in the article will have a sharp falloff - understandably so, since sphere or circle will have sharp border. I wouldn-t call it point lightning...
For me this looks like premature optimization... I would certainly just be rendering whole screenquad and do the shading almost as usual, with no special cases to worry about. Don't forget that all the manipulations with opengl state and additional draw operations will also introduce overhead, and it is not clear which one will outscale the other here.
You forgot to do perspective division here
The simplest way to calculate scaling - transform a point on the surface of sphere to screen coords, and calculate vector length. It mst be a point on the border in screen space, obviously.
I am trying to create the effect of the water surface thickness with a vertex-fragment shader.
I am in a 3D game environment but It's a scroll view so a "2D" view.
Here is a good tutorial of creating such effect in real 2D using fragment shader.
But this can't be used in my case I think.
For the moment I have only a plane were I apply refraction.
And I want to apply the water thickness effect. But I don't know how to do it.
I am not trying to create some water deformation/displacement using vertex for the moment, this is not the point.
I don't know if it's possible with a simple quad maybe should I use an object like this.
Here are some examples.
Thanks a lot !
[EDIT] Added Rayman water effect to have a better reference of the effect.
I am trying to create 2D Water effect with a vertex-fragment shader on a simple quad.
Your first misconception is thinking in 2D. What you see in your right picture is the interaction of light with a 2 surface in a 3D space. A simple quad will not suffice.
For water you need some surface displacement. You can either simulate this by solving some wave equation. Or you're using a fourier transform based approach. I suggest the second. Next you render your scene "regular" for everything above the water, then "murky and refracted" for everything below the water line. Render both to textures.
Then You render the water surface. When looking at the Air→Water Interface (i.e. from above) use a Fresnel reflection term, i.e. mix between top reflection and see through depending on the angle of incidence, and for a too small angle emulate Brewster reflection. For the Water→Air Interface (i.e. from below) you do similar, only you don't need the Fresnel term, but only the Brewster term, to account for total internal reflection.
Since you do all mixing in the fragment shader, you don't need blending, hence no need to sort drawing operations for the water depth.
Yes, rendering water is not trivial.
Greetings all,
As seen in the image , I draw lots of contours using GL_LINE_STRIP.
But the contours look like a mess and I wondering how I can make this look good.(to see the depth..etc )
I must render contours so , i have to stick with GL_LINE_STRIP.I am wondering how I can enable lighting for this?
Thanks in advance
Original image
http://oi53.tinypic.com/287je40.jpg
Lighting contours isn't going to do much good, but you could use fog or manually set the line colors based on distance (or even altitude) to give a depth effect.
Updated:
umanga, at first I thought lighting wouldn't work because lighting is based on surface normal vectors - and you have no surfaces. However #roe pointed out that normal vectors are actually per vertex in OpenGL, and as such, any POLYLINE can have normals. So that would be an option.
It's not entirely clear what the normal should be for a 3D line, as #Julien said. The question is how to define normals for the contour lines such that the resulting lighting makes visual sense and helps clarify the depth?
If all the vertices in each contour are coplanar (e.g. in the XY plane), you could set the 3D normal to be the 2D normal, with 0 as the Z coordinate. The resulting lighting would give a visual sense of shape, though maybe not of depth.
If you know the slope of the surface (assuming there is a surface) at each point along the line, you could use the surface normal and do a better job of showing depth; this is essentially like a hill-shading applied only to the contour lines. The question then is why not display the whole surface?
End of update
+1 to Ben's suggestion of setting the line colors based on altitude (is it topographic contours?) or based on distance from viewer. You could also fill the polygon surrounded by each contour with a similar color, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IsraelCVFRtopography.jpg
Another way to make the lines clearer would be to have fewer of them... can you adjust the density of the contours? E.g. one contour line per 5ft height difference instead of per 1ft, or whatever the units are. Depending on what it is you're drawing contours of.
Other techniques for elucidating depth include stereoscopy, and rotating the image in 3D while the viewer is watching.
If your looking for shading then you would normally convert the contours to a solid. The usual way to do that is to build a mesh by setting up 4 corner points at zero height at the bounds or beyond then dropping the contours into the mesh and getting the mesh to triangulate the coords in. Once done you then have a triangulated solid hull for which you can find the normals and smooth them over adjacent faces to create smooth terrain.
To triangulate the mesh one normally uses the Delaunay algorithm which is a bit of a beast but there does exist libraries for doing it. The best of which I know of is the ones based on Guibas as Stolfi papers since its pretty optimal.
To generate the normals you do a simple cross product and ensure the facing is correct and manually renormalize them before feeding into the glNormal.
The in the old days you used to make a glList out of the result but the newer way is to make a vertex array. If you want to be extra flash then you can look for coincident planar faces and optimize the mesh down for faster redraw but thats a bit of a black art - good for games, not so good for CAD.
(thx for bonus last time)
From what I gathered he used sparse voxel octrees and raycasting. It doesn't seem like he used opengl or direct3d and when I look at the game Voxelstein it appears that miniature cubes are actually being drawn instead of just a bunch of 2d square. Which caught me off guard I'm not sure how he is doing that without opengl or direct3d.
I tried to read through the source code but it was difficult for me to understand what was going on. I would like to implement something similar and would like the algorithm to do so.
I'm interested in how he performed rendering, culling, occlusion, and lighting. Any help is appreciated.
The algorithm is closer to ray-casting than ray-tracing. You can get an explanation from Ken Silverman himself here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120321063223/http://www.jonof.id.au/forum/index.php?topic=30.0
In short: on a grid, store an rle list of surface voxels for each x,y stack of voxels (if z means 'up'). Assuming 4 degrees of freedom, ray-cast across it for each vertical line on the screen, and maintain a list of visible spans which is clipped as each cube is drawn. For 6 degrees of freedom, do something similar but with scanlines which are tilted in screenspace.
I didn't look at the algorithm itself, but I can tell the following based off the screenshots:
it appears that miniature cubes are actually being drawn instead of just a bunch of 2d square
Yep, that's how ray-tracing works. It doesn't draw 2d squares, it traces rays. If you trace your rays against many miniature cubes, you'll see many miniature cubes. The scene is represented by many miniature cubes (voxels), hence you see them when you look up close. It would be nice to actually smoothen the data somehow (trace against smoothed energy function) to make them look smoother.
I'm interested in how he performed rendering
by ray-tracing
culling
no need for culling when ray-tracing, particularly in a voxel scene. As you move along the ray you check only the voxels that the ray intersects.
occlusion
voxel-voxel occlusion is handled naturally by ray-tracing; it would return the first voxel hit, which is the closest. If you draw sprites you can use a Z-buffer generated by the ray-tracer.
and lighting
It's possible to approximate the local normal by looking at nearby cells and looking which are occupied and which are not. Then performing the lighting calculation. Alternatively each voxel can store the normal along with its color or other material properties.