I am trying to use a cube map of the inside of a room to create some reflections on walls, ceiling and floor.
But when I use the cube map, the reflected image is not correct. The point of view seems to be false.
To be correct I use a different cube map for each walls, floor or ceiling. The cube map is calculated from the center of the plane looking at the room.
Are there specialized techniques to achieve such effect ?
But when I use the cube map, the reflected image is not correct.
Yes, this is to be expected.
Are there specialized techniques to achieve such effect ?
Indeed there is; by which I mean years ago I came across an techdemo made by ATI in which they implemented some correction. IIRC this was part of their "Ruby" (the ATI demo, not the language) series of presentations and papers. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore.
EDIT At Siggraph2012 a technique called "Parallax-corrected cubemaps" was presented in a paper about realtime illumination. This looks very similar.
Related
This question already has answers here:
How to render ocean wave using opengl in 3D? [closed]
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have absolutely no idea how to render water sources (ocean, lake, etc). It's like every tutorial I come across assumes I have the basic knowledge in this subject, and therefore speaks abstractly about the issue, but I don't.
My goal is to have a height based water level in my terrain.
I can't find any good article that will help me get started.
The question is quite broad. I'd split it up into separate components and get each working in turn. Hopefully this will help narrow down what those might be, unfortunately I can only offer the higher level discussion you aren't directly after.
The wave simulation (geometry and animation):
A procedural method will give a fixed height for a position and time based on some noise function.
A very basic idea is y = sin(x) + cos(z). Some more elaborate examples are in GPUGems.
Just like in the image, you can render geometry by creating a grid, sampling heights (y) at the grid x,y positions and connecting those points with triangles.
If you explicitly store all the heights in a 2D array, you can create some pretty decent looking waves and ripples. The idea here is to update height based on the neighbouring heights, using a few simple rules. For example, each height moves towards the average neighbouring height but also tends towards the equilibrium height equals zero. For this to work well, heights will need a velocity value to give the water momentum.
I found some examples of this kind of dynamic water here:
height_v[i][j] += ((height_west+ height_east + height_south + height_north)/4 - height[i][j]);
height_v[i][j] *= damping;
height[i][j] += height_v[i][j];
Rendering:
Using alpha transparency is a great first step for water. I'd start here until your simulation is running OK. The primary effect you'll want is reflection, so I'll just cover that. Further on you'll want to scale the reflection value using the Fresnel ratio. You may want an absorption effect (like fog) underwater based on distance (see Beer's law, essentially exp(-distance * density)). Getting really fancy, you might want to render the underneath parts of the water with refraction. But back to reflections...
Probably the simplest way to render a planar reflection is stencil reflections, where you'd draw the scene from underneath the water and use the stencil buffer to only affect pixels where you've previously drawn water.
An example is here.
However, this method doesn't work when you have a bumpy surface and the reflection rays are perturbed.
Rather than render the underwater reflection view directly to the screen, you can render it to a texture. Then you have the colour information for the reflection when you render the water. The tricky part is working out where in the texture to sample after calculating the reflection vector.
An example is here.
This uses textures but just for a perfectly planar reflection.
See also: How do I draw a mirror mirroring something in OpenGL?
I'm revising for an OpenGL exam and keep coming across this question on past papers. It's not something I've been taught and I was wondering if anyone could set me off in the right direction.
Sorry I haven't added what I have so far, there's not much because I don't really understand the question either.
"You wish to create a simple animation that shows a small red sphere shrinking and expanding. Specifically the radius oscillates sinusoidally between 0.3 and 0.5 in magnitude.
(i) Discuss the role of the glutIdleFunc in the animation.
(ii) Write the display method that performs the above animation;
assume the radius vector R is of type double and is declared with
global scope."
The glutIdleFunc documentation could set you off in a direction. Notice how it does calculations in the background, so a possible answer could be discussing how the animation behaves by setting or not setting (or simply leaving empty) that particular callback, respectively.
If you are allowed to use glutSolidSphere or glutWiredSphere the display method could be quite simple if you know the basics of OpenGL (assuming you've studied and attended class :). But if you have to use OpenGL 3.3 or 4.0+ you will probably have to think about coming up with an algorithm to first generate the vertices of the sphere (simpler) then the indices of the vertices (little bit trickier). There are numerous examples on the Internet and StackOverflow on how to do that, I do believe.
Good luck on your exam!
I've been following the GPU Gems 3 tutorial on how to blur based on camera movement. However I'm wanting to implement a blur based on object movement too. The solution is presented in the article (see quote below), however I'm curious as to how exactly to implement this.
At the moment I'm multiplying the object's matrix by the view-projection, then separately again for the previous-view-projection and then passing them into the pixel shader to calculate the velocity instead of just the view-projections.
If that is in fact the correct method, then why am I not simply able to pass in the model-view-projection? I would have assumed they would be the same value?
GPU Gems 3 Motion Blur
To generate a velocity texture for rigid dynamic objects, transform the object by using the current frame's view-projection matrix and the last frame's view-projection matrix, and then compute the difference in viewport positions the same way as for the post-processing pass. This velocity should be computed per-pixel by passing both transformed positions into the pixel shader and computing the velocity there.
Check out my research I did a few months ago on this topic: https://slu-files.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Fragment_shader_dynamic_blur.pdf
(source: stevenlu.net)
(source: stevenlu.net)
Sadly I did not implement textured objects when producing this material, but do use your imagination. I am working on a game engine so when that finally sees the light of day in the form of a game, you can be sure that I'll come and post breadcrumbs here.
It primarily addresses how to implement this effect in 2D, and in cases where objects do not overlap. There is not really a good way to handle using a fragment shader to "sweep" samples in order to generate "accurate" blur. While the effect approaches pixel-perfection as the sample count is cranked up, the geometry that must be generated to cover the sweep area has to be manually assembled using some "ugly" techniques.
In full 3D it's a rather difficult problem to know which pixels a dynamic object will sweep over during the course of a frame. Even with static geometry and a moving camera the solution proposed by the GPU Gems article is incorrect when moving past things quickly because it is unable to address that issue of requiring blending of the area swept out by something moving...
That said, if this approximation which neglects the sweep is sufficient (and it may be) then what you can do to extend to dynamic objects is to take their motion into account. You'll need to work out the details of course but look at lines 2 and 5 in the second code block on the article you linked: They are the current and previous screen space "positions" of the pixel. You simply have to somehow pass in the matrices that will allow you to compute the previous position of each pixel, taking into account the dynamic motion of your object.
It shouldn't be too bad. In the pass where you render your dynamic object you send in an extra matrix that represents its motion over the last frame.
Update:
I found that this paper describes an elegant and performant approach that provides somewhat high quality physically correct blurring for a 3D pipeline. It'll be hard to do much better than this within the constraint of rendering the full scene no more than one time for performance reasons.
I noticed with some of the examples the quality of the velocity buffer could be better. for example a rotating wheel should have some curves in the velocity space. I believe if they can be set properly (may require custom fragment shaders to render the velocity out...) they will look intuitively correct like the spinning cube seen above from my 2D exploration into dynamic motion blurring.
I'm developing a game that basically has its entire terrain made out of AABB boxes. I know the verticies, minimum, and maximum of each box. I also set up my camera like this:
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glLoadIdentity();
glRotatef(Camera.rotx,1,0,0);
glRotatef(Camera.roty,0,1,0);
glRotatef(Camera.rotz,0,0,1);
glTranslatef(-Camera.x,-Camera.y,-Camera.z);
What I'm trying to do is basically find the cube the mouse is on. I thought about giving the mouse position a forward directional vector and simply iterating through until the 'mouse bullet' hits something. However this envolves interating through all objects several times. Is there a way I could do it by only iterating through all the objects once?
Thanks
This is usually referred to as 'picking' This here looks like a good gl based link
If that is tldr, then a basic algorithm you could use
sort objects by z (or keep them sorted by z, or depth buffer tricks etc)
iterate and do a bounds test, stopping when you hit the first one.
This is called Ray Tracing (oops, my mistake, it's actually Ray Casting). Every Physics engine has this functionality. You can look at one of the simplest - ODE, or it's derivative - Bullet. They are open-source so you can take out what you don't need. They both have a handy math library that handles all oftenly needed matrix and vertex operations.
They all have demos on how to do exactly this task.
I suggest you consider looking at this issue from a bigger perspective.
The boxes are just points at a lower resolution. The trick is to reduce the resolution of the mouse to figure out which box it is on.
You may have to perform a 2d to 3d conversion (or vice versa). In most games, the mouse lives in a 2d coordinate world. The stuff "under" the mouse is a 2d projection of a 3d universe.
You want to use a 3D picking algorithm. The idea is that you draw a ray from the user's position in the virtual world in the direction of the click. This blog post explains very clearly how to implement such an algorithm. Essentially your screen coordinates need to be transformed from the screen space to the virtual world space. There's a website that has a very good description about the various transformations involved and I can't post the link due to my rank. Search for book of hook's mouse picking algorithm [I do not own the site and I haven't authored the document].
Once you get a ray in the desired direction, you need to perform tests for intersection with the geometries in the real world. Since you have AABB boxes entirely, you can use simple vector equations to check which geometry intersects the ray. I would say that approximating your boxes as a sphere would make life very easy since there is a very simple sphere-ray intersection test. So, your ray would be described by what you obtain from the first step (the ray drawn in the first step) and then you would need to use an intersection test. If you're ok with using spheres, the center of the sphere would be the point you draw your box and the diameter would be the width of your box.
Good Luck!
From My last question: Marching Cube Question
However, i am still unclear as in:
how to create imaginary cube/voxel to check if a vertex is below the isosurface?
how do i know which vertex is below the isosurface?
how does each cube/voxel determines which cubeindex/surface to use?
how draw surface using the data in triTable?
Let's say i have a point cloud data of an apple.
how do i proceed?
can anybody that are familiar with Marching Cube help me?
i only know C++ and opengl.(c is a little bit out of my hand)
First of all, the isosurface can be represented in two ways. One way is to have the isovalue and per-point scalars as a dataset from an external source. That's how MRI scans work. The second approach is to make an implicit function F() which takes a point/vertex as its parameter and returns a new scalar. Consider this function:
float computeScalar(const Vector3<float>& v)
{
return std::sqrt(v.x*v.x + v.y*v.y + v.z*v.z);
}
Which would compute the distance from the point and to the origin for every point in your scalar field. If the isovalue is the radius, you just figured a way to represent a sphere.
This is because |v| <= R is true for all points inside a sphere, or which lives on its interior. Just figure out which vertices are inside the sphere and which ones are on the outside. You want to use the less or greater-than operators because a volume divides the space in two. When you know which points in your cube are classified as inside and outside, you also know which edges the isosurface intersects. You can end up with everything from no triangles to five triangles. The position of the mesh vertices can be computed by interpolating across the intersected edges to find the actual intersection point.
If you want to represent say an apple with scalar fields, you would either need to get the source data set to plug in to your application, or use a pretty complex implicit function. I recommend getting simple geometric primitives like spheres and tori to work first, and then expand from there.
1) It depends on yoru implementation. You'll need to have a data structure where you can lookup the values at each corner (vertex) of the voxel or cube. This can be a 3d image (ie: an 3D texture in OpenGL), or it can be a customized array data structure, or any other format you wish.
2) You need to check the vertices of the cube. There are different optimizations on this, but in general, start with the first corner, and just check the values of all 8 corners of the cube.
3) Most (fast) algorithms create a bitmask to use as a lookup table into a static array of options. There are only so many possible options for this.
4) Once you've made the triangles from the triTable, you can use OpenGL to render them.
Let's say i have a point cloud data of an apple. how do i proceed?
This isn't going to work with marching cubes. Marching cubes requires voxel data, so you'd need to use some algorithm to put the point cloud of data into a cubic volume. Gaussian Splatting is an option here.
Normally, if you are working from a point cloud, and want to see the surface, you should look at surface reconstruction algorithms instead of marching cubes.
If you want to learn more, I'd highly recommend reading some books on visualization techniques. A good one is from the Kitware folks - The Visualization Toolkit.
You might want to take a look at VTK. It has a C++ implementation of Marching Cubes, and is fully open sourced.
As requested, here is some sample code implementing the Marching Cubes algorithm (using JavaScript/Three.js for the graphics):
http://stemkoski.github.com/Three.js/Marching-Cubes.html
For more details on the theory, you should check out the article at
http://paulbourke.net/geometry/polygonise/