I have question.
Is it possible to have two Vertex shaders. One will view vertex in 2D and second in 3D.
At the moment my program have 2D view.
The only one difference between vertex in 2d and 3d will be that
vec2(x,y) in 3d will vec3(x,y,z). So i am thinking about sending to gpu vec3 and set gl_Position.z=0;
My biggest problem is that i choose magic numbers for glm:lookat and glm::perspective. If i see something it means that it works. So when i have 2d and 3d view everything looks bad.
I can move camera so doing 3d and changing position of camera only wont work.
No, this is not possible. But you can always render the same geometry multiple times, but with different glViewport and projection matrices applied. This is the canonical way to render the classical "top, front, side, perspective" views of 3D editors.
My biggest problem is that i choose magic numbers for glm:lookat and glm::perspective.
Well, then I'd tackle that problem and instead of magical numbers use actual math to create the desired effect.
Related
I'd like to render a vectorfield visualization with OpenGL. Right now, I have a 3D cube filled with points which I need to replace with arrows. I've read a lot about Point Sprites in OpenGL and they seem to fit my needs pretty good.
I haven't really worked with textures yet, so there are some questions regarding the use of them together with Point Sprites:
First of all, is it possible to easily replace my points with arrows by just using a texture? If so, is it possible to rotate or scale those point sprites by an arbitrary degree using shaders?
If there are other possibilites than point sprites for achieving this, it would also be great to hear about them. I'm using OpenGL 4.2.
Point sprites are always screen-aligned squares. And they have an implementation-dependent maximum size.
If you need to do something like this, you should use a Geometry Shader that takes points as inputs, and outputs a quad (as 4 vertices of a triangle strip). Then you can do whatever you want.
Note that you should try to pass as little information as you can get away with out of the GS. Ideally, for maximum performance, you should only output to gl_Position and to a vec2 indicating where in the quad a particular location is.
is it possible to ... scale those point sprites by an arbitrary degree using shaders?
No, point sprites have an implementation-defined upper limit on size.
When you are learning 3D programming, you are taught that it's easiest think in terms of 3 transformation matrices:
The Model Matrix. This matrix is individual to every single model and it rotates and scales the object as desired and finally moves it to its final position within your 3D world. "The Model Matrix transforms model coordinates to world coordinates".
The View Matrix. This matrix is usually the same for a large number of objects (if not for all of them) and it rotates and moves all objects according to the current "camera position". If you imaging that the 3D scene is filmed by a camera and what is rendered on the screen are the images that were captured by this camera, the location of the camera and its viewing direction define which parts of the scene are visible and how the objects appear on the captured image. There are little reasons for changing the view matrix while rendering a single frame, but those do in fact exists (e.g. by rendering the scene twice and changing the view matrix in between, you can create a very simple, yet impressive mirror within your scene). Usually the view matrix changes only once between two frames being drawn. "The View Matrix transforms world coordinates to eye coordinates".
The Projection Matrix. The projection matrix decides how those 3D coordinates are mapped to 2D coordinates, e.g. if there is a perspective applied to them (objects get smaller the farther they are away from the viewer) or not (orthogonal projection). The projection matrix hardly ever changes at all. It may have to change if you are rendering into a window and the window size has changed or if you are rendering full screen and the resolution has changed, however only if the new window size/screen resolution has a different display aspect ratio than before. There are some crazy effects for that you may want to change this matrix but in most cases its pretty much constant for the whole live of your program. "The Projection Matrix transforms eye coordinates to screen coordinates".
This makes all a lot of sense to me. Of course one could always combine all three matrices into a single one, since multiplying a vector first by matrix A and then by matrix B is the same as multiplying the vector by matrix C, where C = B * A.
Now if you look at the classical OpenGL (OpenGL 1.x/2.x), OpenGL knows a projection matrix. Yet OpenGL does not offer a model or a view matrix, it only offers a combined model-view matrix. Why? This design forces you to permanently save and restore the "view matrix" since it will get "destroyed" by model transformations applied to it. Why aren't there three separate matrices?
If you look at the new OpenGL versions (OpenGL 3.x/4.x) and you don't use the classical render pipeline but customize everything with shaders (GLSL), there are no matrices available any longer at all, you have to define your own matrices. Still most people keep the old concept of a projection matrix and a model-view matrix. Why would you do that? Why not using either three matrices, which means you don't have to permanently save and restore the model-view matrix or you use a single combined model-view-projection (MVP) matrix, which saves you a matrix multiplication in your vertex shader for ever single vertex rendered (after all such a multiplication doesn't come for free either).
So to summarize my question: Which advantage has a combined model-view matrix together with a separate projection matrix over having three separate matrices or a single MVP matrix?
Look at it practically. First, the fewer matrices you send, the fewer matrices you have to multiply with positions/normals/etc. And therefore, the faster your vertex shaders.
So point 1: fewer matrices is better.
However, there are certain things you probably need to do. Unless you're doing 2D rendering or some simple 3D demo-applications, you are going to need to do lighting. This typically means that you're going to need to transform positions and normals into either world or camera (view) space, then do some lighting operations on them (either in the vertex shader or the fragment shader).
You can't do that if you only go from model space to projection space. You cannot do lighting in post-projection space, because that space is non-linear. The math becomes much more complicated.
So, point 2: You need at least one stop between model and projection.
So we need at least 2 matrices. Why model-to-camera rather than model-to-world? Because working in world space in shaders is a bad idea. You can encounter numerical precision problems related to translations that are distant from the origin. Whereas, if you worked in camera space, you wouldn't encounter those problems, because nothing is too far from the camera (and if it is, it should probably be outside the far depth plane).
Therefore: we use camera space as the intermediate space for lighting.
In most cases your shader will need the geometry in world or eye coordinates for shading so you have to seperate the projection matrix from the model and view matrices.
Making your shader multiply the geometry with two matrices hurts performance. Assuming each model have thousends (or more) vertices it is more efficient to compute a model view matrix in the cpu once, and let the shader do one less mtrix-vector multiplication.
I have just solved a z-buffer fighting problem by separating the projection matrix. There is no visible increase of the GPU load. The two folowing screenshots shows the two results - pay attention to the green and white layers fighting.
Is there a way to extract a point cloud from a rendered 3D Scene (using OPENGL)?
in Detail:
The input should be a rendered 3D Scene.
The output should be e.g a three dimensional array with vertices(x,y,z).
Mission possible or impossible?
Render your scene using an orthographic view so that all of it fits on screen at once.
Use a g-buffer (search for this term or "fat pixel" or "deferred rendering") to capture
(X,Y,Z, R, G, B, A) at each sample point in the framebuffer.
Read back your framebuffer and put the (X,Y,Z,R,G,B,A) tuple at each sample point in a
linear array.
You now have a point cloud sampled from your conventional geometry using OpenGL. Apart from the readback from the GPU to the host, this will be very fast.
Going further with this:
Use depth peeling (search for this term) to generate samples on surfaces that are not
nearest to the camera.
Repeat the rendering from several viewpoints (or equivalently for several rotations
of the scene) to be sure of capturing fragments from a the nooks and crannies of the
scene and append the points generated from each pass into one big linear array.
I think you should take your input data and manually multiply it by your transformation and modelview matrices. No need to use OpenGL for that, just some vector/matrices math.
If I understand correctly, you want to deconstruct a final rendering (2D) of a 3D scene. In general, there is no capability built-in to OpenGL that does this.
There are however many papers describing approaches to analyzing a 2D image to generate a 3D representation. This is for example what the Microsoft Kinect does to some extent. Look at the papers presented at previous editions of SIGGRAPH for a starting point. Many implementations probably make use of the GPU (OpenGL, DirectX, CUDA, etc.) to do their magic, but that's about it. For example, edge-detection filters to identify the visible edges of objects and histogram functions can run on the GPU.
Depending on your application domain, you might be in for something near impossible or there might be a shortcut you can use to identify shapes and vertices.
edit
I think you might have a misunderstanding of how OpenGL rendering works. The application produces and sends to OpenGL the vertices of triangles forming polygons and 3d objects. OpenGL then rasterizes (i.e. converts to pixels) these objects to form a 2d rendering of the 3d scene from a particular point of view with a particular field of view. When you say you want to retrieve a "point cloud" of the vertices, it's hard to understand what you want since you are responsible for producing these vertices in the first place!
First of all, I have very little knowledge of what shaders can do, and i am very interested in making vertex lighting. I am attempting to use a 3d colormap which would be used to calculate the vertex color at that position of the world, and also interpolate the color by using the nearby colors from the colormap.
I cant use typical OpenGL lighting because its probably too slow and theres a lot of lights i need to render. I am going to "render" the lights at the colormap first, and then i could either manually map every vertex drawn with the corresponding color from the colormap.
...Or i could somehow automate this process, so i wouldnt have to change the color values of vertexes myself, but a shader could perhaps do this for me?
Questions is... is this possible, and if it is: what i need to know to make it possible?
Edit: Note that i also need to update the lightmap efficiently, without caring about the size of the lightmap, so the update should be done only at that specific part of the lightmap i want to update.
It almost sounds like what you want to do is render the lights to your color map, then use your color map as a texture, but instead of decal mode set it to modulate mode, so it's multiplied with the existing color instead of just replacing it.
That is different in one way though: instead of just affecting the vertexes, it'll map to the individual fragments (pixels, in essence).
Edit: What I had in mind wasn't a 3D texture -- it was a cube map. Basically, create a virtual cube surrounding everything in your "world". Create a 2D texture for each face of that cube. Render your coloring to the cube map. Then, to color a vertex you (virtually) extend a ray outward from the center, through the vertex, to the cube. The pixel you hit on the cube map gives you the color of lighting for that vertex.
Updating should be relatively efficient -- you have normal 2D textures for the top, bottom, front, etc., and you update them as needed.
If you cant use the fixed function pipeline functionality the best way to do per vertex lighting should be to do all the lighting calculations per vertex in the vertex-shader, when you then pass it on the the fragment shader it will be correctly interpolated across the face.
Another way to deal with performances issues when using a lot of light sources is to use deferred rendering as it will only do lighting calculation on the geometry that is actually visible.
That is possible, but will not be effective on the current hardware.
You want to render light volumes into 3d texture. The rasterizer works on a 2D surface, so your volumes have to be split along one of the axises. The split can be done in one of the following ways:
Different draw calls for each split
Instanced draw, with layer selection based on glInstanceID (will require geometry shader)
Branch in geometry shader directly from a single draw call
In order to implement it, I would suggest reading GL-3 specification and examples. It's not going to be easy, nor it will be fast enough in the result for complex scenes.
I'm looking for a projection matrix I can use in 3D that will give me the effect of a fisheye. I'm not looking for a pixelshader or anything like that, that will manipulate pixels - but the actual projection matrix used in projecting from 3D space onto 2D.
Thanks.
That's not really possible. In homogeneous coordinates, matrices transform lines to lines. So any solution based solely on matrices will necessarily fail to bend lines like you want to.
Carlos isn't wrong but you might want to try playing with the "field of view (FOV)" parameter in your projection matrix builder.
Carlos is right. There is a way your could fake it, but you will have to re-render your scene multiple times.
Basically, you start by figuring out how to do two point perspective. Which I would do by rendering the scene twice with a projection matrix that has a vanishing point on alternating sides. Then you combine the two parts, I guess using a stencil map.
You could do something like four point perspective combining images with four vanishing points. You repeat that process as many times.
What your doing then is projecting onto a polygon that approximates a sphere.
I could explain more, but my guess is it sounds too complicated.
The simplest way to fake it is to render to a texture and distort the image, and render it as a fullscreen quad.