Let's say i have 2 textured triangles.
I want to draw one triangle over the other one, such that the top one is basically laying on top of the second one.
Now technically they are on the same plane, but they do not share the same "space" (they do not intersect), though visually it is tough to tell at a certain distance.
Basically when these triangles are very close together (in parallel) i see texture "artifacts". I should ONLY see the triangle that is on top. But what im seeing is that the triangle in the background tends to "bleed" through.
Is there a way to alleviate this side effect, like increasing the depth precision or something? Maybe even increase the tessellation of the triangles?
* Update *
I am using vertex and index buffers. This is using OpenGL ES on iPhone.
I dont know if this picture will help or make things worse. But here it is. Two triangles very close to each other along the Z-axis (but not touching). (NOTE: the normal vector for these triangles are going straight towards you).
You can increase the depth precision up to 32 bits per pixel. However, if the 2 triangles are coplanar, that likely won't fix the problem. If they aren't coplanar (it's really hard to tell from your description what you're talking about), then increasing the depth precision might help. If you're using FBOs for your drawing, simply create the depth texture with 32-bits per component by using GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT32 for the internal format. There are several examples here. If you're not using FBOs, please describe how you create your context (also what OS you're on - Windows, OS X, Linux?).
You could try changing the Depth Buffer function to something more appropriate...
glDepthFunc(GL_ALWAYS) - Essentially disables depth testing
glDepthFunc(GL_GEQUAL) - Overwrites when greater OR equal
If they are too close (assuming they are parallel, not on the same plane), you will get precision errors (like banding artifacts=. Try adding some small offset to the top polygon using glPolygonOffsset: http://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man/xhtml/glPolygonOffset.xml Check this simple tutorial: http://www.felixgers.de/teaching/jogl/polygonOffset.html
EDIT: Also try increasing precision as #user1118321 says.
What you are describing is called Z-Fighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting).
Sadly depth buffers only have limited precision, so if the difference in depth of two polygons is smaller than the precision of the depth buffer, you can't predict which polygon will pass the depth test and be drawn.
As others have said, you can increase the precision of the depth buffer so that polygons have to be closer to each other before the z-fighting artifacts occur, or you can disable the depth test so you are ensured that polygons rendered wont be blocked by anything previously drawn.
Related
I have a texture and a mesh, if I apply the texture on the mesh, it tiles it continuously as one would expect. The offset for each tile is equal.
The problem:
Non-tilable texture or texture with some outstanding elements are looking repetitive and cheap.
Example:
Solution Attempt
My first attempt was to programatically generate a texture size of a mesh with randomised offsets for each tiles. Of course the size of the texture became a problem, let alone the GPU limitation of a single texture max size.
What I would like to do
I would like to know if there's a way to make a Unity shader or a material that would load a single texture and tile it with random offsets for each tile and do it only once to keep the performance high?
I believe you might try one of techniques invented by Inigo Quilez (http://www.iquilezles.org/www/articles/texturerepetition/texturerepetition.htm).
Basically, non-tilable textures and textures with some outstanding elements are different problems.
Non-tilable textures
There are 2 ways of solving it:
Fixing the texture itself;
Mirrored repeat can be used in some cases (see GL_MIRRORED_REPEAT)
Textures with some outstanding elements
This can be solved in the following ways (or conjunction of them):
Modifying the texture (this includes enlargement as well);
Using multitexturing;
Well, maybe mirrored repeat can be used as well in some cases.
Shifting texture coordinates randomly
Unfortunately, I can't think of any case of these 2 problems (except, maybe, white nose textures) where texture coordinates shifting is a solution.
You are looking at this problem the wrong way. All games face this issue. They hide it simply by a) varying textures a lot instead of texturing large areas with the same texture and b) through level design. Imagine this plane filled with barns, gras, trees, fences and what not - suddenly the mono-textured surface blends in with its surroundings. Also camera angle plays a huge role in this. Try changing your camera position close to the ground and the repeating texture is much less noticeable.
Your plane is just a very extreme example. You should not try to fix it at this point but rather continue to build your game. Or design your textures to repeat well without showing clear patterns. The extreme would be a flatcolored texture. But generally large outdoor terrain textures simply have very little structure, almost being like noise, plus they don't use colors with any contrast, just shades of the same color.
Your offset idea won't work. Perhaps it might work technically (it may be inefficient though). But random offsets can't cover up the patterns, instead it will create new ones because the textures won't smoothly interpolate at their edges anymore, so you could clearly see a grid of squares. That I guess would be even uglier and more noticeable.
Lastly you can increase texture size or scale (blurryness may need to be covered up as explained above). In relation to camera angle this would be the easiest, most effective fix. Or at least an improvement.
old thread, but relevant to many I think. You can do this in a shader, by randomizing the Vertex position on the XZ plane, (or better) the UV co-ordinates, based on the world space of the co-ordinates.
The texture will still tile.... but instead of being in a straight line... it will be in a random wiggly line. This is great for stuff like terrain, grass etc.... but obviously no good if you want to maintain straight lines in your textures.
A second option is diffuse-detail shader. It tiles one texture up close to camera, and another when further away (which you can make softer / more blurry
Third option... blend 2 textures together, with different UV tiling scale (non divisible. e.g not scale 2 and 4, but use 1 and 2.334556) on each, so the pattern is harder to see
I've been trying to utilize the techniques in Eric Penner's "Shader Amortization using
Pixel Quad Message Passing" from GPU Pro 2, Chapter VI.2. The basic idea is that modern GPU's process fragment shaders in 2x2 fragment quads, and you can use ddx() and ddy() to get the value of some_var at all four fragments as long as the following hold:
Your GPU supports high-quality derivatives
You know which fragment you're processing (top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right)
This opens up a lot of opportunities for fragment shader optimization (like distributing texture fetches over a 2x2 pixel quad) that you'd need Compute Shaders to beat.
My problem is this:
I can't deterministically detect which fragment I'm processing. Ideally, each fragment block would start at even-numbered output pixel coords like (0, 0), (2, 0), ... (1024, 1024), ..., so you'd just need to check whether the output pixel x and y coords are even or odd to know which fragment you're currently processing. The method Penner uses in the book assumes this works...but it seems to be going wrong for me.
Unfortunately, my 2x2 fragment quads appear to be starting in nondeterministic places: I've seen them start at (even, even), (even, odd), and (odd, even). I can't remember if I've seen (odd, odd) or not, but anyway, the arrangement seems to depend on a myriad of factors I don't understand, including the output resolution and shader specifics. (I'm testing on an 8800 GTS, in case anyone's wondering.)
Does anyone know what might be causing this nondeterminism or have any documentation on it? I understand there's virtually no official standardization in this area, but I'm more interested in how things work in practice on modern desktop-level GPU's, and I'm hoping there's a way to get this technique to work. If no one knows how to reason about the even/odd start behavior, does anyone know any other way of determining the current fragment's relative location in its 2x2 quad?
Thanks :)
As it turns out, the premise of my question was mostly wrong:
The 2x2 fragment quads DO almost always start on even pixel numbers...as long as the output resolution is even-numbered.
If the output resolution is odd-numbered (a possibility with the underlying program I'm working with), things can get more complicated, for obvious reasons. I don't expect there's any uniformity here across drivers/GPU's/etc. either, but my current tests (which themselves may still be buggy) appear to demonstrate 2x2 pixel quads starting at an odd pixel along the dimension with odd resolution, at least when the odd dimension is horizontal.
All of this weirdness helped obscure my bigger issue: The code I used to detect the fragment's location in the pixel quad was buggy. I tested by setting the texture coordinates equal within a pixel quad (set to the pixel quad center)...or so I thought. However, I calculated the screen coordinates based on a full-screen quad where the uv mapping has the +v axis pointing downward. The screenspace origin starts at the bottom-left, because it's based on the top-right quadrant of Cartesian coordinates, and I accidentally forgot to invert the v-coordinate of the uv offset I used to find the pixel quad center. Many of my nondeterministic observations came from failing to check my assumptions while debugging and misinterpreting things as a result, particularly in combination with odd resolutions.
This was an embarrassing mistake I should have caught a lot sooner, but I figured I'd detail it as a warning to others to always double-check the direction of your vertical axis when you're dealing with opposite-facing coordinate frames. ;)
UPDATE:
I ran across a situation where 2x2 pixel quads started on even pixel numbers even when the resolution was odd. Thanks to the nondeterminism under odd resolutions, I had to work out another solution:
If you're deriving your screen pixel numbers from the uv coords of a fullscreen quad (for post-processing), the fragment location derived from this is only useful for arranging/placing shared samples between fragments, etc., not for the quad-pixel communication itself. You'll need to have screen pixel numbers with respect to the screenspace origin for that. You can derive these from vertex positions, or you can use ddx().x and ddy().y on the uv-based pixel numbers to find out their screen direction and mirror the fragment position in the appropriate direction from there.
Calculate the fragment location based on your screen pixel numbers (with respect to the true screenspace origin) and the assumption 2x2 pixel quads start on even pixels. (If you used uv-based pixel numbers, now is the time to mirror things.)
Do a ddx().x and ddy().y on the fragment location, and if they're negative in either direction, you know the pixel quad starts at an odd pixel number in that direction...so mirror in that direction.
If you calculate two fragment positions, one based on a uv origin and one based on a screen origin, use the uv-based one for reasoning about uv-based sample placement, and use the screen-based one for actually obtaining the values of a variable at neighboring fragments.
Profit.
I'll post a link to my working MIT-licensed code once I release it on Github, along with usage examples (the speedup is unfortunately not what I expected, but whatever ;)). I'm just waiting to get done with a larger shader I'll be uploading along with it.
Where can I get an algorithm to render filled triangles? Edit3: I cant use OpenGL for rendering it. I need the per-pixel algorithm for this.
My goal is to render a regular polygon from triangles, so if I use this triangle filling algorithm, the edges from each triangle wouldn't overlap (or make gaps between them), because then it would result into rendering errors if I use for example XOR to render the pixels.
Therefore, the render quality should match to OpenGL rendering, so I should be able to define - for example - a circle with N-vertices, and it would render like a circle with any size correctly; so it doesn't use only integer coordinates to render it like some triangle filling algorithms do.
I would need the ability to control the triangle filling myself: I could add my own logic on how each of the individual pixels would be rendered. So I need the bare code behind the rendering, to have full control on it. It should be efficient enough to draw tens of thousands of triangles without waiting more than a second perhaps. (I'm not sure how fast it can be at best, but I hope it wont take more than 10 seconds).
Preferred language would be C++, but I can convert other languages to my needs.
If there are no free algorithms for this, where can I learn to build one myself, and how hard would that actually be? (me=math noob).
I added OpenGL tag since this is somehow related to it.
Edit2: I tried the algo in here: http://joshbeam.com/articles/triangle_rasterization/ But it seems to be slightly broken, here is a circle with 64 triangles rendered with it:
But if you zoom in, you can see the errors:
Explanation: There is 2 pixels overlapping to the other triangle colors, which should not happen! (or transparency or XOR etc effects will produce bad rendering).
It seems like the errors are more visible on smaller circles. This is not acceptable if I want to have a XOR effect for the pixels.
What can I do to fix these, so it will fill it perfectly without overlapped pixels or gaps?
Edit4: I noticed that rendering very small circles isn't very good. I realised this was because the coordinates were indeed converted to integers. How can I treat the coordinates as floats and make it render the circle precisely and perfectly just like in OpenGL ? Here is example how bad the small circles look like:
Notice how perfect the OpenGL render is! THAT is what I want to achieve, without using OpenGL. NOTE: I dont just want to render perfect circle, but any polygon shape.
There's always the half-space method.
OpenGL uses the GPU to perform this job. This is accelerated in hardware and is called rasterization.
As far as i know the hardware implementation is based on the scan-line algorithm.
This used to be done by creating the outline and then filling in the horizontal lines. See this link for more details - http://joshbeam.com/articles/triangle_rasterization/
Edit: I don't think this will produce the lone pixels you are after, there should be a pixel on every line.
Your problem looks a lot like the problem one has when it comes to triangles sharing the very same edge. What is done by triangles sharing an edge is that one triangle is allowed to conquer the space while the other has to leave it blank.
When doing work with a graphic card usually one gets this behavior by applying a drawing order from left to right while also enabling a z-buffer test or testing if the pixel has ever been drawn. So if a pixel with the very same z-value is already set, changing the pixel is not allowed.
In your example with the circles the line of both neighboring circle segments are not exact. You have to check if the edges are calculated differently and why.
Whenever you draw two different shapes and you see something like that you can either fix your model (so they share all the edge vertexes), go for a z-buffer test or a color test.
You can also minimize the effect by drawing edges using a sub-buffer that has a higher resolution and down-sample it. Since this does not effect the whole area it is more cost effective in terms of space and time when compared to down-sampling the whole scene.
How I can make my own z-buffer for correct blending alpha channels? I'm using glsl.
I have only one idea. And this is use 2 "buffers", one of them storing depth-component and another color (with alpha channel). I don't need access to buffer in my program. I cant use uniform array because glsl have a restriction for the number of uniforms variables. I cant use FBO because behaviour for sometime writing and reading Frame Buffer is not defined (and dont working at any cards).
How I can resolve this problem?!
Or how to read actual real time z-buffer from glsl? (I mean for each fragment shader call z-buffer must be updated)
How I can make my own z-buffer for correct blending alpha channels?
That's not possible. For perfect order-independent transparency you must get rid of z-buffer and replace it with another mechanism for hidden surface removal.
With z-buffer there are two possible ways to tackle the problem.
Multi-layered z-buffer (impractical with hardware acceleration) - basically it'll store several layers of "depth" values and will use it for blending transparent surfaces. Will hog a lot of memory, and there will be maximum number of transparent overlayying surfaces, once you're over the limit, there will be artifacts.
Depth peeling (google it). Order independent transparency, but there's a limit for maximum number of "overlaying" transparent polygons per pixel. Can actually be implemented on hardware.
Both approaches will have a limit (maximum number of overlapping transparent polygons per pixel), once you go over the limit, scene will no longer render properly. Which means the whole thing rather useless.
What you could actually do (to get perfect solution) is to remove the zbuffer completely, and make a graphic rendering pipeline that will gather all polygons to be rendered, clip them, split them (when two polygons intersect), sort them and then paint them on screen in correct order to ensure that you'll get correct result. However, this is hard, and doing it with hardware acceleration is harder. I think (I'm not completely certain it happened) 5 ot 6 years ago some ATI GPU-related document mentioned that some of their cards could render correct scene with Z-Buffer disabled by enabling some kind of extension. However, they didn't say a thing about alpha-blending. I haven't heard about this feature since. Perhaps it didn't become popular and shared the fate of TruForm (forgotten). Also such rendering pipeline will not be able to some things that are possible on z-buffer
If it's order-independent transparencies you're after then the fundamental problem is that a depth buffer stores on depth per pixel but if you're composing a view of partially transparent geometry then more than one fragment contributes to each pixel.
If you were to solve the problem robustly you'd need an ordered list of depths per pixel, going back to the closest opaque fragment. You'd then walk the list in reverse order. In practice OpenGL doesn't do things like variably sized arrays so people achieve pretty much that by drawing their geometry in back-to-front order.
An alternative embodied by GL_SAMPLE_ALPHA_TO_COVERAGE is to switch to screen-door transparency, which is indistinguishable from real transparency either at a really high resolution or with multisampling. Ideally you'd do that stochastically, but that would void the OpenGL rule of repeatability. Nevertheless since you're in GLSL you can do it for yourself. Your sampler simply takes the input alpha and uses that as the probability that it'll output the final pixel. So grab a random value in the range 0.0 to 1.0 from somewhere and if it's greater than the alpha then discard the pixel. Always output with an alpha of 1.0 and just use the normal depth buffer. Answers like this say a bit more on what you can do to get randomish numbers in GLSL, and obviously you want to turn multisampling up as high as possible.
Eric Enderton has written a decent paper (which has a slide version) on stochastic order-independent transparency that goes alongside a DirectX implementation that's worth checking out.
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3508/texturefailz.png
This is my current program. I know it's terribly ugly, I found two random textures online ('lava' and 'paper') which don't even seem to tile. That's not the problem at the moment.
I'm trying to figure out the first steps of an RPG. This is a top-down screenshot of a 10x10 heightmap (currently set to all 0s, so it's just a plane), and I texture it by making one pass per texture per quad, and each vertex has alpha values for each texture so that they blend with OpenGL.
The problem is that, notice how the textures trend along diagonals, and even though I'm drawing with GL_QUAD, this is presumably because the quads are turned into sets of two triangles and then the alpha values at the corners have more weight along the hypotenuses... But I wasn't expecting that to matter at all. By drawing quads, I was hoping that even though they were split into triangles at some low level, the vertex alphas would cause the texture to radiate in a circular outward gradient from the vertices.
How can I fix this to make it look better? Do I need to scrap this and try a whole different approach? IS there a different approach for something like this? I'd love to hear alternatives as well.
Feel free to ask questions and I'll be here refreshing until I get a valid answer, so I'll comment as fast as I can.
Thanks!!
EDIT:
Here is the kind of thing I'd like to achieve. No I'm obviously not one of the billions of noobs out there "trying to make a MMORPG", I'm using it as an example because it's very much like what I want:
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5725/runescapehowdotheytile.png
How do you think this is done? Part of it must be vertex alphas like I'm doing because of the smooth gradients... But maybe they have a list of different triangle configurations within a tile, and each tile stores which configuration it uses? So for example, configuration 1 is a triangle in the topleft and one in the bottomright, 2 is the topright and bottomleft, 3 is a quad on the top and a quad on the bottom, etc? Can you think of any other way I'm missing, or if you've got it all figured out then please share how they do it!
The diagonal artefacts are caused by having all of your quads split into triangles along the same diagonal. You define points [0,1,2,3] for your quad. Each quad is split into triangles [0,1,2] and [1,2,3]. Try drawing with GL_TRIANGLES and alternating your choice of diagonal. There are probably more efficient ways of doing this using GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP or GL_QUAD_STRIP.
i think you are doing it right, but you should increase the resolution of your heightmap a lot to get finer tesselation!
for example look at this heightmap renderer:
mdterrain
it shows the same artifacts at low resolution but gets better if you increase the iterations
I've never done this myself, but I've read several guides (which I can't find right now) and it seems pretty straight-forward and can even be optimized by using shaders.
Create a master texture to control the mixing of 4 sub-textures. Use the r,g,b,a components of the master texture as a percentage mix of each subtextures ( lava, paper, etc, etc). You can easily paint a master texture using paint.net, photostop, gimp and just paint into each color channel. You can compute the resulting texture before hand using all 5 textures OR you can calculate the result on the fly with a fragment shader. I don't have a good example of either, but I think you can figure it out given how far you've come.
The end result will be "pixel" pefect blending (depends on the textures resolution and filtering) and will avoid the vertex blending issues.