I am trying to make polygon A be at position (x,y) at time= 1 sec for example. Then it should be at position (x,y+2) when time = 2 sec. Then I plan to make more polygons like this. I also want this to be animated and the polygon to smoothly move from the first position to the second, not a polygon jumping a round.
Now thus far, I have learned about the glutTimerFunction, however, from my understanding, I cannot individually tell polygons to be at position (x,y) and time T. But rather it seems like I have to make every polygon that i desire(around 500) and then have timer cycle through all the polygons at once.
Is there a way to explicitly tell the polygon to be at position (x,y) at time T using the glutTimerFunc?
OpenGL is a low level API, not an engine or a framework. It has no built-in method for automatically doing interpolation between positions over time, that's up to you as the engine writer to implement as you see fit. Linear interpolation between two points over time is fairly easy (ie, in pseudocode position = startPos + ((endPos - startPos) * timeElapsed). Interpolation along a more complex curve is essentially the same, just the math is a little more involved to represent the desired curve.
You are correct that you must iterate through all of your polygons by hand and position them. This is another feature of using the low level graphics API instead of a pre-written engine.
There are a number of engines of varying complexity (and price) available that abstract away these details for you, however, if your goal is to learn graphics programming I would suggest shying away from them and plowing through.
Related
I have a physics engine that uses AABB testing to detect object collisions and an animation system that does not use linear interpolation. Because of this, my collisions act erratically at times, especially at high speeds. Here is a glaringly obvious problem in my system...
For the sake of demonstration, assume a frame in our animation system lasts 1 second and we are given the following scenario at frame 0.
At frame 1, the collision of the objects will not bet detected, because c1 will have traveled past c2 on the next draw.
Although I'm not using it, I have a bit of a grasp on how linear interpolation works because I have used linear extrapolation in this project in a different context. I'm wondering if linear interpolation will solve the problems I'm experiencing, or if I will need other methods as well.
There is a part of me that is confused about how linear interpolation is used in the context of animation. The idea is that we can achieve smooth animation at low frame rates. In the above scenario, we cannot simply just set c1 to be centered at x=3 in frame 1. In reality, they would have collided somewhere between frame 0 and frame 1. Does linear interpolation automatically take care of this and allow for precise AABB testing? If not, what will it solve and what other methods should I look into to achieve smooth and precise collision detection and animation?
The phenomenon you are experiencing is called tunnelling, and is a problem inherent to discrete collision detection architectures. You are correct in feeling that linear interpolation may have something to do with the solution as it can allow you to, within a margin of error (usually), predict the path of an object between frames, but this is just one piece of a much larger solution. The terminology I've seen associated with these types of solutions is "Continuous Collision Detection". The topic is large and gets quite complex, and there are books that discuss it, such as Real Time Collision Detection and other online resources.
So to answer your question: no, linear interpolation on its own won't solve your problems*. Unless you're only dealing with circles or spheres.
What to Start Thinking About
The way the solutions look and behave are dependant on your design decisions and are generally large. So just to point in the direction of the solution, the fundamental idea of continuous collision detection is to figure out: How far between the early frame and the later frame does the collision happen, and in what position and rotation are the two objects at this point. Then you must calculate the configuration the objects will be in at the later frame time in response to this. Things get very interesting addressing these problems for anything other than circles in two dimensions.
I haven't implemented this but I've seen described a solution where you march the two candidates forward between the frames, advancing their position with linear interpolation and their orientation with spherical linear interpolation and checking with discrete algorithms whether they're intersecting (Gilbert-Johnson-Keerthi Algorithm). From here you continue to apply discrete algorithms to get the smallest penetration depth (Expanding Polytope Algorithm) and pass that and the remaining time between the frames, along to a solver to get how the objects look at your later frame time. This doesn't give an analytic answer but I don't have knowledge of an analytic answer for generalized 2 or 3D cases.
If you don't want to go down this path, your best weapon in the fight against complexity is assumptions: If you can assume your high velocity objects can be represented as a point things get easier, if you can assume the orientation of the objects doesn't matter (circles, spheres) things get easier, and it keeps going and going. The topic is beyond interesting and I'm still on the path of learning it, but it has provided some of the most satisfying moments in my programming period. I hope these ideas get you on that path as well.
Edit: Since you specified you're working on a billiard game.
First we'll check whether discrete or continuous is needed
Is any amount of tunnelling acceptable in this game? Not in billiards
no.
What is the speed at which we will see tunnelling? Using a 0.0285m
radius for the ball (standard American) and a 0.01s physics step, we
get 2.85m/s as the minimum speed that collisions start giving bad
response. I'm not familiar with the speed of billiard balls but that
number feels too low.
So just checking on every frame if two of the balls are intersecting is not enough, but we don't need to go completely continuous. If we use interpolation to subdivide each frame we can increase the velocity needed to create incorrect behaviour: With 2 subdivisions we get 5.7m/s, which is still low; 3 subdivisions gives us 8.55m/s, which seems reasonable; and 4 gives us 11.4m/s which feels higher than I imagine billiard balls are moving. So how do we accomplish this?
Discrete Collisions with Frame Subdivisions using Linear Interpolation
Using subdivisions is expensive so it's worth putting time into candidate detection to use it only where needed. This is another problem with a bunch of fun solutions, and unfortunately out of scope of the question.
So you have two candidate circles which will very probably collide between the current frame and the next frame. So in pseudo code the algorithm looks like:
dt = 0.01
subdivisions = 4
circle1.next_position = circle1.position + (circle1.velocity * dt)
circle2.next_position = circle2.position + (circle2.velocity * dt)
for i from 0 to subdivisions:
temp_c1.position = interpolate(circle1.position, circle1.next_position, (i + 1) / subdivisions)
temp_c2.position = interpolate(circle2.position, circle2.next_position, (i + 1) / subdivisions)
if intersecting(temp_c1, temp_c2):
intersection confirmed
no intersection
Where the interpolate signature is interpolate(start, end, alpha)
So here you have interpolation being used to "move" the circles along the path they would take between the current and the next frame. On a confirmed intersection you can get the penetration depth and pass the delta time (dt / subdivisions), the two circles, the penetration depth and the collision points along to a resolution step that determines how they should respond to the collision.
I have got a binary image/contour containing four human beings, and I want to detect/count all humans. Since there are occlusions, so I think it is best to get the head/maxima in the contour of all the humans. In that case human can be counted.
I am able to get the global maxima\topmost point (in terms of calculus language), but I want to get all the local maximas
The code for finding the topmost point is as suggested by Adrian in his blogpost i.e.:
topmost = tuple(biggest_contour[biggest_contour[:,:,1].argmin()][0])
Can anyone please suggest how to get all the local maximas, instead of just topmost location?
Here is the sample of my Image:
The definition of "local maximum" can be tricky to pin down, but if you start with a simple method you'll develop an intuition to look further. Even if there are methods available on the web to do this work for you, it's worth implementing a few basic techniques yourself before you go googling.
One simple method I've used in the path goes something like this:
Find the contours as arrays/lists/containers of (x,y) coordinates.
At each element N (a pixel) in the list, get the pixels at N - D and N + D; that is the pixels D ahead of the current pixel and D behind the current pixel
Calculate the point-to-point distance
Calculate the distance along the contour from N-D to N+D
Calculate (distanceAlongContour)/(point-to-point distance)
...
There are numerous other ways to do this, but this is quick to implement from scratch, and I think a reasonable starting point: Compare the "geodesic" distance and the Euclidean distance.
A few other possibilities:
Do a bunch of curve fits to chunks of pixels from the contour. (Lots of details to investigate here.)
Use Ramer-Puecker-Douglas to render the outlines as polygons, then choose parameters to ensure those polygons are appropriately simplified. (Second time I've mentioned R-P-D today; it's handy.) Check for vertices with angles that deviate much from 180 degrees.
Try a corner detector. Crude, but easy to implement.
Implement an edge follower that moves from one pixel to the next in the contour list, and calculate some kind of "inertia" as the pixel shifts direction. This wouldn't be useful on a pixel-by-pixel basis, but you could compare, say, pixels N-1,N,N+1 to pixels N+1,N+2,N+3. Or just calculate the angle between them.
I'm trying to determine from a large set of positions how to narrow my list down significantly.
Right now I have around 3000 positions (x, y, z) and I want to basically keep the positions that are furthest apart from each other (I don't need to keep 100 positions that are all within a 2 yard radius from each other).
Besides doing a brute force method and literally doing 3000^2 comparisons, does anyone have any ideas how I can narrow this list down further?
I'm a bit confused on how I should approach this from a math perspective.
Well, I can't remember the name for this algorithm, but I'll tell you a fun technique for handling this. I'll assume that there is a semi-random scattering of points in a 3D environment.
Simple Version: Divide and Conquer
Divide your space into a 3D grid of cubes. Each cube will be X yards on each side.
Declare a multi-dimensional array [x,y,z] such that you have an element for each cube in your grid.
Every element of the array should either be a vertex or reference to a vertex (x,y,z) structure, and each should default to NULL
Iterate through each vertex in your dataset, determine which cube the vertex falls in.
How? Well, you might assume that the (5.5, 8.2, 9.1) vertex belongs in MyCubes[5,8,9], assuming X (cube-side-length) is of size 1. Note: I just truncated the decimals/floats to determine which cube.
Check to see if that relevant cube is already taken by a vertex. Check: If MyCubes[5,8,9] == NULL then (inject my vertex) else (do nothing, toss it out! spot taken, buddy)
Let's save some memory
This will give you a nicely simplified dataset in one pass, but at the cost of a potentially large amount of memory.
So, how do you do it without using too much memory?
I'd use a hashtable such that my key is the Grid-Cube coordinate (5,8,9) in my sample above.
If MyHashTable.contains({5,8,9}) then DoNothing else InsertCurrentVertex(...)
Now, you will have a one-pass solution with minimal memory usage (no gigantic array with a potentially large number of empty cubes. What is the cost? Well, the programming time to setup your structure/class so that you can perform the .contains action in a HashTable (or your language-equivalent)
Hey, my results are chunky!
That's right, because we took the first result that fit in any cube. On average, we will have achieved X-separation between vertices, but as you can figure out by now, some vertices will still be close to one another (at the edges of the cubes).
So, how do we handle it? Well, let's go back to the array method at the top (memory-intensive!).
Instead of ONLY checking to see if a vertex is already in the cube-in-question, also perform this other check:
If Not ThisCubeIsTaken()
For each SurroundingCube
If not Is_Your_Vertex_Sufficiently_Far_Away_From_Me()
exit_loop_and_outer_if_statement()
end if
Next
//Ok, we got here, we can add the vertex to the current cube because the cube is not only available, but the neighbors are far enough away from me
End If
I think you can probably see the beauty of this, as it is really easy to get neighboring cubes if you have a 3D array.
If you do some smoothing like this, you can probably enforce a 'don't add if it's with 0.25X' policy or something. You won't have to be too strict to achieve a noticeable smoothing effect.
Still too chunky, I want it smooth
In this variation, we will change the qualifying action for whether a vertex is permitted to take residence in a cube.
If TheCube is empty OR if ThisVertex is closer to the center of TheCube than the Cube's current vertex
InsertVertex (overwrite any existing vertex in the cube
End If
Note, we don't have to perform neighbor detection for this one. We just optimize towards the center of each cube.
If you like, you can merge this variation with the previous variation.
Cheat Mode
For some people in this situation, you can simply take a 10% random selection of your dataset and that will be a good-enough simplification. However, it will be very chunky with some points very close together. On the bright side, it takes a few minutes max. I don't recommend it unless you are prototyping.
I'm creating a game where the world is formed out of cubes (like in Minecraft), but there's just one small problem I can't put my finger on. I've created the world, the player, the camera movement and rotation (glRotatef and glTranslatef). Now I'm stuck at finding out what block the player is looking at.
EDIT: In case I didn't make my question clear enough, I don't understand how to cast the ray to check for collision with the blocks. All the blocks that I'm drawing are stored in a 3D array, containing the block id (I know I need to use octrees, but I just want the algorithm to work, optimization comes along the way)
OpenGL is a drawing/rendering API, not some kind of game/graphics engine. You tell it to draw stuff, and that's what it does.
Tests like the one you intend are not covered by OpenGL, you've to implement them either yourself or use some library designed for this. In your case you want to test the world against the viewing frustum. The exact block the player looks on can be found by doing a ray geometry intersection test, i.e. you cast a ray from your player position into the direction the player looks and test which objects intersect with that ray. Using a spatial subdivision structure helps speeding things up. In the case of a world made of cubes the most easy and efficient structure is a octree, i.e. one large cube that gets subdivided into 8 sub-cubes of half the containing cube's edge length. Then those subcubes are divided and so on.
Traversing such a structure is easily implemented by recursive functions – don't worry about stack overflow, since already as litte as 10 subdivisions would yield 2^10^3 = 2^30 sub-sub-...-sub-cubes, with a requirement of at leat 8GB of data to build a full detailed mesh from them. But 10 function recursion levels are not very deep.
First imagine a vector from your eye point in the direction of the camera with a length equal to the player's "reach". If I remember correctly the reach in Minecraft is about 4 blocks (or 4 meters). For every block in your world that could intersect that vector (which can be as simple as a 3D loop over a cube of blocks bounded by the min/max x/y/z values for your reach vector) cast a ray at the cube (if it's not air) to see if you hit it. Raycasting at an AABB (axis aligned bounding box) is pretty straightforward and you can Google that algorithm. Now sort the results by distance and return the block that hit the ray first.
As seen in the image
I draw set of contours (polygons) as GL_LINE_STRIP.
Now I want to select curve(polygon) under the mouse to delete,move..etc in 3D .
I am wondering which method to use:
1.use OpenGL picking and selection. ( glRenderMode(GL_SELECT) )
2.use manual collision detection , by using a pick-ray and check whether the ray is inside each polygon.
I strongly recommend against GL_SELECT. This method is very old and absent in new GL versions, and you're likely to get problems with modern graphics cards. Don't expect it to be supported by hardware - probably you'd encounter a software (driver) fallback for this mode on many GPUs, provided it would work at all. Use at your own risk :)
Let me provide you with an alternative.
For solid, big objects, there's an old, good approach of selection by:
enabling and setting the scissor test to a 1x1 window at the cursor position
drawing the screen with no lighting, texturing and multisampling, assigning an unique solid colour for every "important" entity - this colour will become the object ID for picking
calling glReadPixels and retrieving the colour, which would then serve to identify the picked object
clearing the buffers, resetting the scissor to the normal size and drawing the scene normally.
This gives you a very reliable "per-object" picking method. Also, drawing and clearing only 1 pixel with minimal per-pixel operation won't really hurt your performance, unless you are short on vertex processing power (unlikely, I think) or have really a lot of objects and are likely to get CPU-bound on the number of draw calls (but then again, I believe it's possible to optimize this away to a single draw call if you could pass the colour as per-pixel data).
The colour in RGB is 3 unsigned bytes, but it should be possible to additionally use the alpha channel of the framebuffer for the last byte, so you'd get 4 bytes in total - enough to store any 32-bit pointer to the object as the colour.
Alternatively, you can create a dedicated framebuffer object with a specific pixel format (like GL_R32UI, or even GL_RG32UI if you need 64 bits) for that.
The above is a nice and quick alternative (both in terms of reliability and in implementation time) for the strict geometric approach.
I found that on new GPUs, the GL_SELECT mode is extremely slow. I played with a few different ways of fixing the problem.
The first was to do a CPU collision test, which worked, but wasn't as fast as I would have liked. It definitely slows down when you are casting rays into the screen (using gluUnproject) and then trying to find which object the mouse is colliding with. The only way I got satisfactory speeds was to use an octree to reduce the number of collision tests down and then do a bounding box collision test - however, this resulted in a method that was not pixel perfect.
The method I settled on was to first find all the objects under the mouse (using gluUnproject and bounding box collision tests) which is usually very fast. I then rendered each of the objects that have potentially collided with the mouse in the backbuffer as a different color. I then used glReadPixel to get the color under the mouse, and map that back to the object. glReadPixel is a slow call, since it has to read from the frame buffer. However, it is done once per frame, which ends up taking a negligible amount of time. You can speed it up by rendering to a PBO if you'd like.
Giawa
umanga, Cant see how to reply inline... maybe I should sign up :)
First of all I must apologize for giving you the wrong algo - i did the back face culling one. But the one you need is very similar which is why I got confused... d'oh.
Get the camera position to mouse vector as said before.
For each contour, loop through all the coords in pairs (0-1, 1-2, 2-3, ... n-0) in it and make a vec out of them as before. I.e. walk the contour.
Now do the cross prod of those two (contour edge to mouse vec) instead of between pairs like I said before, do that for all the pairs and vector add them all up.
At the end find the magnitude of the resulting vector. If the result is zero (taking into account rounding errors) then your outside the shape - regardless of facing. If your interested in facing then instead of the mag you can do that dot prod with the mouse vector to find the facing and test the sign +/-.
It works because the algo finds the amount of distance from the vector line to each point in turn. As you sum them up and you are outside then they all cancel out because the contour is closed. If your inside then they all sum up. Its actually Gauss's Law of electromagnetic fields in physics...
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law and note "the right-hand side of the equation is the total charge enclosed by S divided by the electric constant" noting the word "enclosed" - i.e. zero means not enclosed.
You can still do that optimization with the bounding boxes for speed.
In the past I've used GL_SELECT to determine which object(s) contributed the pixel(s) of interest and then used computational geometry to get an accurate intersection with the object(s) if required.
Do you expect to select by clicking the contour (on the edge) or the interior of the polygon? Your second approach sounds like you want clicks in the interior to select the tightest containing polygon. I don't think that GL_SELECT after rendering GL_LINE_STRIP is going to make the interior responsive to clicks.
If this was a true contour plot (from the image I don't think it is, edges appear to intersect) then a much simpler algorithm would be available.
You cant use select if you stay with the lines because you would have to click on the line pixels rendered not the space inside the lines bounding them which I read as what you wish to do.
You can use Kos's answer but in order to render the space you need to solid fill it which would involve converting all of your contours to convex types which is painful. So I think that would work sometimes and give the wrong answer in some cases unless you did that.
What you need to do is use the CPU. You have the view extents from the viewport and the perspective matrix. With the mouse coord, generate the view to mouse pointer vector. You also have all the coords of the contours.
Take the first coord of the first contour and make a vector to the second coord. Make a vector out of them. Take 3rd coord and make a vector from 2 to 3 and repeat all the way around your contour and finally make the last one from coord n back to 0 again. For each pair in sequence find the cross product and sum up all the results. When you have that final summation vector keep hold of that and do a dot product with the mouse pointer direction vector. If its +ve then the mouse is inside the contour, if its -ve then its not and if 0 then I guess the plane of the contour and the mouse direction are parallel.
Do that for each contour and then you will know which of them are spiked by your mouse. Its up to you which one you want to pick from that set. Highest Z ?
It sounds like a lot of work but its not too bad and will give the right answer. You might like to additionally keep bounding boxes of all your contours then you can early out the ones off of the mouse vector by doing the same math as for the full vector but only on the 4 sides and if its not inside then the contour cannot be either.
The first is easy to implement and widely used.