Background:
I am creating a game that presents the world in an isometric perspective, achieved by drawing isometric tiles. My current implementation is naive, using the painter's method, drawing from back to front, from bottom to top, using surface blits from tile images.
The Problem:
I'm concerned (maybe unduly so, please let me know if this is the case) about overdraw. Here's a small snapshot of a single layer of tiles:
The areas hi-lit in pink are the areas where the back-to-front, bottom-to-top method blits pixels to the canvas more than once. This is a small and contrived example, but in practice I hope to accomplish something more along the lines of this:
(image credit eBoy)
With an image as complex as this, and a tile-based implementation, each screen pixel is drawn to several times before the final image is composited, which feels like it's really inefficient. Since these are just 2D images with, in the end, one-bit alpha masks, there aren't as many concerns as there would be with 3D (e.g. no wasted lighting or transform math) but it still seems there should be a more elegant way of determining whether a pixel should be drawn or not based on whether or not it would be occluded in the final composition.
Solutions?
The best solution I've come up with so far is to:
Reverse the drawing order and draw front-to-back, top-to-bottom.
Keep a single bit per pixel fake z buffer that records whether or not a pixel has been drawn yet.
Only draw a tile if some of the pixels it covers haven't been drawn yet.
Is there a better way to do this? Are blit operations superefficient and I'm tilting at windmills here?
Windmills. Especially if you're using OpenGL-accelerated SDL2 blits.
Related
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.
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.
I want to make a game with Worms-like destructible terrain in 2D, using OpenGL.
What is the best approach for this?
Draw pixel per pixel? (Uh, not good?)
Have the world as a texture and manipulate it (is that possible?)
Thanks in advance
Thinking about the way Worms terrain looked, I came up with this idea. But I'm not sure how you would implement it in OpenGL. It's more of a layered 2D drawing approach. I'm posting the idea anyway. I've emulated the approach using Paint.NET.
First, you have a background sky layer.
And you have a terrain layer.
The terrain layer is masked so the top portion isn't drawn. Draw the terrain layer on top of the sky layer to form the scene.
Now for the main idea. Any time there is an explosion or other terrain-deforming event, you draw a circle or other shape on the terrain layer, using the terrain layer itself as a drawing mask (so only the part of the circle that overlaps existing terrain is drawn), to wipe out part of the terrain. Use a transparent/mask-color brush for the fill and some color similar to the terrain for the thick pen.
You can repeat this process to add more deformations. You could keep this layer in memory and add deformations as they occur or you could even render them in memory each frame if there aren't too many deformations to render.
I guess you'd better use texture-filled polygons with the correct mapping (a linear one that doesn't stretch the texture to use all the texels, but leaves the cropped areas out), and then reshape them as they get destroyed.
I'm assuming your problem will be to implement the collision between characters/weapons/terrain.
As long as you aren't doing this on opengl es, you might be able to get away with using the stencil buffer to do per-pixel collision detection and have your terrain be a single modifyable texture.
This page will give an idea:
http://kometbomb.net/2007/07/11/hardware-accelerated-2d-collision-detection-in-opengl/
The way I imagine it is this:
a plane with the texture applied
a path( a vector of points/segments ) used for ground collisions.
When something explodes, you do a boolean operation (rectangle-circle) for the texture(revealing the background) and for the 'walkable' path.
What I'm trying to say is you do a geometric boolean operation and you use the result to update the texture(with an alpha mask or something) and update the data structure you use to keep track of the walkable area(which ever that might be).
Split things up, instead of relying only on gl draw methods
I think I would start by drawing the foreground into the stencil buffer so the stencil buffer is set to 1 bits anywhere there's foreground, and 0 elsewhere (where you want your sky to show).
Then to draw a frame, you draw your sky, enable the stencil buffer, and draw the foreground. For the initial frame (before any explosion has destroyed part of the foreground) the stencil buffer won't really be doing anything.
When you do have an explosion, however, you draw it to the stencil buffer (clearing the stencil buffer for that circle). Then you re-draw your data as before: draw the sky, enable the stencil buffer, and draw the foreground.
This lets you get the effect you want (the foreground disappears where desired) without having to modify the foreground texture at all. If you prefer not to use the stencil buffer, the alternative that seems obvious to me would be to enable blending, and just manipulate the alpha channel of your foreground texture -- set the alpha to 0 (transparent) where it's been affected by an explosion. IMO, the stencil buffer is a bit cleaner approach, but manipulating the alpha channel is pretty simple as well.
I think, but this is just a quick idea, that a good way might be to draw a Very Large Number of Lines.
I'm thinking that you represent the landscape as a bunch of line segments, for each column of the screen you have 0..n vertical lines, that make up the ground:
12 789
0123 6789
0123456789
0123456789
In the above awesomeness, the column of "0":s makes up a single line, and so on. I didn't try to illustrate the case where a single pixel column has more than one line, since it's a bit hard in this coarse format.
I'm not sure this will be efficient, but it at least makes some sense since lines are an OpenGL primitive.
You can color and texture the lines by enabling texture-mapping and specifying the desired texture coordinates for each line segment.
Typically the way I have seen it done is to have each entity be a textured quad, then update the texture for animation. For a destructible terrain it might be best to break the train into tiles then you only have to update the ones that have changed. Don't use GLdrawpixels it is probably the slowest approach possible (outside of reloading textures from disk every frame though it would be close.)
I'm drawing 2D shapes with OpenGL. They aren't using that many polygons. I notice that I can have lots and lots of shapes as long as they don't overlap. If I get a shape behind a shape behind.... etc.. it really starts lagging. I feel like I might be doing something wrong. Is this normal and is there a way to fix this (I can't omit rendering because I do blending for alpha). I also have CW backface culling enabled.
Thanks
Are your two cases (overlapping and non-overlapping) using the exact same set of shapes? Because if the overlapping case involves a total area of all your shapes that is larger than the first case, then it would be expected to be slower. If it's the same set of shapes that slows down if some of them overlap, then that would be very unusual and shouldn't happen on any standard hardware OpenGL implementation (what platform are you using?). Backface culling won't be causing any problem.
Whenever a shape is drawn, the GPU has to do some work for each pixel that it covers on the screen. If you draw the same shape 100 times in the same place, then that's 100-times the pixel work. Depth buffering can reduce some of the extra cost for opaque objects if you draw objects in depth-sorted order, but that trick can't work for things that use transparency.
When using transparency, it's the sum of the area of each rendered shape that matters. Not the amount of the screen that's covered after everything is rendered.
You need to order your shapes front-to-back if they are opaque. Then the depth test can quickly and easily reject each pixel.
Then, you need to order them back-to-front if they are transparent. Rendering transparency out-of-order is very slow.
Edit: Hmm, I (somehow) missed the fact that this is 2D, despite the fact that the OP mentioned it repeatedly.
I have textures that i'm creating and would like to antialias them. I have access to each pixel's color, given this how could I antialias the entire texture?
Thanks
I'm sorry but true anti-aliasing does not consist in getting the average color from the neighbours as commented above. This will undoubtfully soften the edges but it's not anti-aliasing but blurring. True anti-aliasing just cannot be done properly on a bitmap, since it has to be calculated at drawing time to tell which pixels and/or edges must be "softened" and which ones must not. For instance: imagine you draw an horizontal line which must be exactly 1 pixel thick (say "high") and must be placed exactly on an integer screen row coordinate. Obviously, you'll want it unsoftened, and proper anti-aliasing algorithm will do it, drawing your line as a perfect row of solid pixels surrounded by perfect background-coloured pixels, with no tone blending at all. But if you take this same line once it's been drawn (i.e. bitmap) and apply the average method, you'll get blurring above and below the line, resulting a 3 pixels thick horizontal line, which is not the goal. Of course, everything could be achieved through the right coding but from a very different and much more complex approach.
The basic method for anti-aliasing is: for a pixel P, sample the pixels around it. P's new color is the average of its original color with those of the samples.
You might sample more or less pixels, change the size of the area around the pixel to sample, or randomly choose which pixels to sample.
As others have said, though: anti-aliasing isn't really something that's done to an image that's already a bitmap of pixels. It's a technique that's implemented in the 2D/3D rendering engine.
"Anti-aliasing" can refer to a broad range of different techniques. None of those would typically be something that you would do in advance to a texture.
Maybe you mean mip-mapping? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mipmap
It's not very meaningful to ask about antialiasing in terms this vague. It all depends on the nature of the textures and how they will be used.
Generally though, if you don't have control over the display environment and your textures might be scaled, rotated, or composited with other elements you don't have any control over, you should use transparency to indicate where your image ends and where it only partially fills a pixel.
It's also generally good to avoid sharp edges and features that are small relative to the amount of scaling that might be done.