In my OpenGL project, I want to dynamically create smoothed polygons, similiar like this one:
The problem relies mainly in the smoothing process. My procedure up to this point, is firstly to create a VBO with randomly placed vertices.
Then, in my fragment shader, (I'm using the programmable function pipeline) there should happen the smoothing process, or in other words, created the curves out of the previously defined "lines" between the vertices.
And exactly here is the problem: I am not very familiar with thoose complex mathematical algorithms, which would examine, if a point is inside the "smoothed polygon" or not.
First up, you can't really do it in the fragment shader. The fragment shader is limited to setting the final(ish) color of a "pixel" (which is basically, but not exactly, an actual pixel) before it gets written to the screen. It can't create new points on a curve.
This page gives a nice overview of the different algorithms for creating smooth curves.
The general approach is to break a couple of points into multiple points using a geometry shader, and then render them just like a normal polygon. But I don't know the details. Try a google search for bezier geometry shader for example.
Wait, I lie. I found a program here that does it in the fragment shader.
Related
I have a GLSL shader that draws a 3D curve given a set of Bezier curves (3d coordinates of points). The drawing itself is done as I want except the occlusion does not work correctly, i.e., under certain viewpoints, the curve that is supposed to be in the very front appears to be still occluded, and reverse: the part of a curve that is supposed to be occluded is still visible.
To illustrate, here are couple examples of screenshots:
Colored curve is closer to the camera, so it is rendered correctly here.
Colored curve is supposed to be behind the gray curve, yet it is rendered on top.
I'm new to GLSL and might not know the right term for this kind of effect, but I assume it is occlusion culling (update: it actually indicates the problem with depth buffer, terminology confusion!).
My question is: How do I deal with occlusions when using GLSL shaders?
Do I have to treat them inside the shader program, or somewhere else?
Regarding my code, it's a bit long (plus I use OpenGL wrapper library), but the main steps are:
In the vertex shader, I calculate gl_Position = ModelViewProjectionMatrix * Vertex; and pass further the color info to the geometry shader.
In the geometry shader, I take 4 control points (lines_adjacency) and their corresponding colors and produce a triangle strip that follows a Bezier curve (I use some basic color interpolation between the Bezier segments).
The fragment shader is also simple: gl_FragColor = VertexIn.mColor;.
Regarding the OpenGL settings, I enable GL_DEPTH_TEST, but it does not seem to have anything of what I need. Also if I put any other non-shader geometry on the scene (e.g. quad), the curves are always rendered on the top of it regardless the viewpoint.
Any insights and tips on how to resolve it and why it is happening are appreciated.
Update solution
So, the initial problem, as I learned, was not about finding the culling algorithm, but that I do not handle the calculation of the z-values correctly (see the accepted answer). I also learned that given the right depth buffer set-up, OpenGL handles the occlusions correctly by itself, so I do not need to re-invent the wheel.
I searched through my GLSL program and found that I basically set the z-values as zeros in my geometry shader when translating the vertex coordinates to screen coordinates (vec2( vertex.xy / vertex.w ) * Viewport;). I had fixed it by calculating the z-values (vertex.z/vertex.w) separately and assigned them to the emitted points (gl_Position = vec4( screenCoords[i], zValues[i], 1.0 );). That solved my problem.
Regarding the depth buffer settings, I didn't have to explicitly specify them since the library I use set them up by default correctly as I need.
If you don't use the depth buffer, then the most recently rendered object will be on top always.
You should enable it with glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST), set the function to your liking (glDepthFunc(GL_LEQUAL)), and make sure you clear it every frame with everything else (glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT)).
Then make sure your vertex shader is properly setting the Z value of the final vertex. It looks like the simplest way for you is to set the "Model" portion of ModelViewProjectionMatrix on the CPU side to have a depth value before it gets passed into the shader.
As long as you're using an orthographic projection matrix, rendering should not be affected (besides making the draw order correct).
I'm trying to develop a high level understanding of the graphics pipeline. One thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why the Geometry shader exists. Both the Tessellation and Geometry shaders seem to do the same thing to me. Can someone explain to me what does the Geometry shader do different from the tessellation shader that justifies its existence?
The tessellation shader is for variable subdivision. An important part is adjacency information so you can do smoothing correctly and not wind up with gaps. You could do some limited subdivision with a geometry shader, but that's not really what its for.
Geometry shaders operate per-primitive. For example, if you need to do stuff for each triangle (such as this), do it in a geometry shader. I've heard of shadow volume extrusion being done. There's also "conservative rasterization" where you might extend triangle borders so every intersected pixel gets a fragment. Examples are pretty application specific.
Yes, they can also generate more geometry than the input but they do not scale well. They work great if you want to draw particles and turn points into very simple geometry. I've implemented marching cubes a number of times using geometry shaders too. Works great with transform feedback to save the resulting mesh.
Transform feedback has also been used with the geometry shader to do more compute operations. One particularly useful mechanism is that it does stream compaction for you (packs its varying amount of output tightly so there are no gaps in the resulting array).
The other very important thing a geometry shader provides is routing to layered render targets (texture arrays, faces of a cube, multiple viewports), something which must be done per-primitive. For example you can render cube shadow maps for point lights in a single pass by duplicating and projecting geometry 6 times to each of the cube's faces.
Not exactly a complete answer but hopefully gives the gist of the differences.
See Also:
http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/
I've been reading up on a lot of various articles regarding to ray-marching in GLSL shaders (such as this one article: http://www.iquilezles.org/www/articles/rmshadows/rmshadows.htm) and it raised some questions that I wanted to ask.
In my application, I am rendering a scene with a couple of meshes and I wanted to experiment with shadows. While I seem to somewhat understand the concept of how raymarching works, I don't quite understand how to properly implement this in GLSL. I know how to compute the intersection of a ray and a plane but how would this be handled through GLSL shaders?
According to this thread here: (https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/67719/how-do-raymarch-shaders-work) it mentions that you're measuring the distance between the start of the ray and the 'surface'. Is the surface he's referring to the mesh? Do I need to send an array of planes/points that makes up the mesh to the shader in order to compute the ray intersection test? Do I need to use the depth buffer to determine the distance of the surface?
It's depend of what your shader does vs what your rendering engin does. In pure demo shaders like shadertoy (see its shadow examples ) the whole scene is encoded in the shader so there is no problem shooting secondary rays or more (beside perfs).
If the scene is not managed by your shader, then you need a bit of cooperation from your engine. At least, to produce a shadowmap in a first pass (many different algorithms exists).
Note that with SVO representation, the scene is first converted into sparse voxels, which can then be marched by the shader for secondary rays. Could be even for primary ray, but you do can use regular Z-buffer here, and voxel cone-tracing (for instance) for all kinds of secondary rays ( see *Interactive Indirect Illumination Using Voxel Cone Tracing * here: http://gigavoxels.imag.fr/publications.html (ok, you might find it overkill in your simple application). For soft shadows and depth of field, see the seminal paper GigaVoxels : Ray-Guided Streaming for Efficient and Detailed Voxel Rendering . Note that the tree might even be a regular BSP of triangles, instead of on octree of voxels. But then you loose many advantage of SVO (perfs, increased for soft shadows).
I'm having a little bit of trouble conceptualizing the workflow used in a shader-based OpenGL program. While I've never really done any major projects using either the fixed-function or shader-based pipelines, I've started learning and experimenting, and it's become quite clear to me that shaders are the way to go.
However, the fixed-function pipeline makes much more sense to me from an intuitive perspective. Rendering a scene with that method is simple and procedural—like painting a picture. If I want to draw a box, I tell the graphics card to draw a box. If I want a lot of boxes, I draw my box in a loop. The fixed-function pipeline fits well with my established programming tendencies.
These all seem to go out the window with shaders, and this is where I'm hitting a block. A lot of shader-based tutorials show how to, for example, draw a triangle or a cube on the screen, which works fine. However, they don't seem to go into at all how I would apply these concepts in, for example, a game. If I wanted to draw three procedurally generated triangles, would I need three shaders? Obviously not, since that would be infeasible. Still, it's clearly not as simple as just sticking the drawing code in a loop that runs three times.
Therefore, I'm wondering what the "best practices" are for using shaders in game development environments. How many shaders should I have for a simple game? How do I switch between them and use them to render a real scene?
I'm not looking for specifics, just a general understanding. For example, if I had a shader that rendered a circle, how would I reuse that shader to draw different sized circles at different points on the screen? If I want each circle to be a different color, how can I pass some information to the fragment shader for each individual circle?
There is really no conceptual difference between the fixed-function pipeline and the programmable pipeline. The only thing shaders introduce is the ability to program certain stages of the pipeline.
On current hardware you have (for the most part) control over the vertex, primitive assembly, tessellation and fragment stages. Some operations that occur inbetween and after these stages are still fixed-function, such as depth/stencil testing, blending, perspective divide, etc.
Because shaders are actually nothing more than programs that you drop-in to define the input and output of a particular stage, you should think of input to a fragment shader as coming from the output of one of the previous stages. Vertex outputs are interpolated during rasterization and these are often what you're dealing with when you have an in variable in a fragment shader.
You can also have program-wide variables, known as uniforms. These variables can be accessed by any stage simply by using the same name in each stage. They do not vary across invocations of a shader, hence the name uniform.
Now you should have enough information to figure out this circle example... you can use a uniform to scale your circle (likely a simple scaling matrix) and you can either rely on per-vertex color or a uniform that defines the color.
You don't have shaders that draws circles (ok, you may with the right tricks, but's let's forget it for now, because it is misleading and has very rare and specific uses). Shaders are little programs you write to take care of certain stages of the graphic pipeline, and are more specific than "drawing a circle".
Generally speaking, every time you make a draw call, you have to tell openGL which shaders to use ( with a call to glUseProgram You have to use at least a Vertex Shader and a Fragment Shader. The resulting pipeline will be something like
Vertex Shader: the code that is going to be executed for each of the vertices you are going to send to openGL. It will be executed for each indices you sent in the element array, and it will use as input data the correspnding vertex attributes, such as the vertex position, its normal, its uv coordinates, maybe its tangent (if you are doing normal mapping), or whatever you are sending to it. Generally you want to do your geometric calculations here. You can also access uniform variables you set up for your draw call, which are global variables whic are not goin to change per vertex. A typical uniform variable you might watn to use in a vertex shader is the PVM matrix. If you don't use tessellation, the vertex shader will be writing gl_Position, the position which the rasterizer is going to use to create fragments. You can also have the vertex outputs different things (as the uv coordinates, and the normals after you have dealt with thieri geometry), give them to the rasterizer an use them later.
Rasterization
Fragment Shader: the code that is going to be executed for each fragment (for each pixel if that is more clear). Generally you do here texture sampling and light calculation. You will use the data coming from the vertex shader and the rasterizer, such as the normals (to evaluate diffuse and specular terms) and the uv coordinates (to fetch the right colors form the textures). The texture are going to be uniform, and probably also the parameters of the lights you are evaluating.
Depth Test, Stencil Test. (which you can move before the fragment shader with the early fragments optimization ( http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Early_Fragment_Test )
Blending.
I suggest you to look at this nice program to develop simple shaders http://sourceforge.net/projects/quickshader/ , which has very good examples, also of some more advanced things you won't find on every tutorial.
I have a program in which I need to apply a 2-dimensional texture (simple image) to a surface generated using the marching-cubes algorithm. I have access to the geometry and can add texture coordinates with relative ease, but the best way to generate the coordinates is eluding me.
Each point in the volume represents a single unit of data, and each unit of data may have different properties. To simplify things, I'm looking at sorting them into "types" and assigning each type a texture (or portion of a single large texture atlas).
My problem is I have no idea how to generate the appropriate coordinates. I can store the location of the type's texture in the type class and use that, but then seams will be horribly stretched (if two neighboring points use different parts of the atlas). If possible, I'd like to blend the textures on seams, but I'm not sure the best manner to do that. Blending is optional, but I need to texture the vertices in some fashion. It's possible, but undesirable, to split the geometry into parts for each type, or to duplicate vertices for texturing purposes.
I'd like to avoid using shaders if possible, but if necessary I can use a vertex and/or fragment shader to do the texture blending. If I do use shaders, what would be the most efficient way of telling it was texture or portion to sample? It seems like passing the type through a parameter would be the simplest way, but possible slow.
My volumes are relatively small, 8-16 points in each dimension (I'm keeping them smaller to speed up generation, but there are many on-screen at a given time). I briefly considered making the isosurface twice the resolution of the volume, so each point has more vertices (8, in theory), which may simplify texturing. It doesn't seem like that would make blending any easier, though.
To build the surfaces, I'm using the Visualization Library for OpenGL and its marching cubes and volume system. I have the geometry generated fine, just need to figure out how to texture it.
Is there a way to do this efficiently, and if so what? If not, does anyone have an idea of a better way to handle texturing a volume?
Edit: Just to note, the texture isn't simply a gradient of colors. It's actually a texture, usually with patterns. Hence the difficulty in mapping it, a gradient would've been trivial.
Edit 2: To help clarify the problem, I'm going to add some examples. They may just confuse things, so consider everything above definite fact and these just as help if they can.
My geometry is in cubes, always (loaded, generated and saved in cubes). If shape influences possible solutions, that's it.
I need to apply textures, consisting of patterns and/or colors (unique ones depending on the point's "type") to the geometry, in a technique similar to the splatting done for terrain (this isn't terrain, however, so I don't know if the same techniques could be used).
Shaders are a quick and easy solution, although I'd like to avoid them if possible, as I mentioned before. Something usable in a fixed-function pipeline is preferable, mostly for the minor increase in compatibility and development time. Since it's only a minor increase, I will go with shaders and multipass rendering if necessary.
Not sure if any other clarification is necessary, but I'll update the question as needed.
On the texture combination part of the question:
Have you looked into 3d textures? As we're talking marching cubes I should probably immediately say that I'm explicitly not talking about volumetric textures. Instead you stack all your 2d textures into a 3d texture. You then encode each texture coordinate to be the 2d position it would be and the texture it would reference as the third coordinate. It works best if your textures are generally of the type where, logically, to transition from one type of pattern to another you have to go through the intermediaries.
An obvious use example is texture mapping to a simple height map — you might have a snow texture on top, a rocky texture below that, a grassy texture below that and a water texture at the bottom. If a vertex that references the water is next to one that references the snow then it is acceptable for the geometry fill to transition through the rock and grass texture.
An alternative is to do it in multiple passes using additive blending. For each texture, draw every face that uses that texture and draw a fade to transparent extending across any faces that switch from one texture to another.
You'll probably want to prep the depth buffer with a complete draw (with the colour masks all set to reject changes to the colour buffer) then switch to a GL_EQUAL depth test and draw again with writing to the depth buffer disabled. Drawing exactly the same geometry through exactly the same transformation should produce exactly the same depth values irrespective of issues of accuracy and precision. Use glPolygonOffset if you have issues.
On the coordinates part:
Popular and easy mappings are cylindrical, box and spherical. Conceptualise that your shape is bounded by a cylinder, box or sphere with a well defined mapping from surface points to texture locations. Then for each vertex in your shape, start at it and follow the normal out until you strike the bounding geometry. Then grab the texture location that would be at that position on the bounding geometry.
I guess there's a potential problem that normals tend not to be brilliant after marching cubes, but I'll wager you know more about that problem than I do.
This is a hard and interesting problem.
The simplest way is to avoid the issue completely by using 3D texture maps, especially if you just want to add some random surface detail to your isosurface geometry. Perlin noise based procedural textures implemented in a shader work very well for this.
The difficult way is to look into various algorithms for conformal texture mapping (also known as conformal surface parametrization), which aim to produce a mapping between 2D texture space and the surface of the 3D geometry which is in some sense optimal (least distorting). This paper has some good pictures. Be aware that the topology of the geometry is very important; it's easy to generate a conformal mapping to map a texture onto a closed surface like a brain, considerably more complex for higher genus objects where it's necessary to introduce cuts/tears/joins.
You might want to try making a UV Map of a mesh in a tool like Blender to see how they do it. If I understand your problem, you have a 3D field which defines a solid volume as well as a (continuous) color. You've created a mesh from the volume, and now you need to UV-map the mesh to a 2D texture with texels extracted from the continuous color space. In a tool you would define "seams" in the 3D mesh which you could cut apart so that the whole mesh could be laid flat to make a UV map. There may be aliasing in your texture at the seams, so when you render the mesh it will also be discontinuous at those seams (ie a triangle strip can't cross over the seam because it's a discontinuity in the texture).
I don't know any formal methods for flattening the mesh, but you could imagine cutting it along the seams and then treating the whole thing as a spring/constraint system that you drop onto a flat surface. I'm all about solving things the hard way. ;-)
Due to the issues with texturing and some of the constraints I have, I've chosen to write a different algorithm to build the geometry and handle texturing directly in that as it produces surfaces. It's somewhat less smooth than the marching cubes, but allows me to apply the texcoords in a way that works for my project (and is a bit faster).
For anyone interested in texturing marching cubes, or just blending textures, Tommy's answer is a very interesting technique and the links timday posted are excellent resources on flattening meshes for texturing. Thanks to both of them for their answers, hopefully they can be of use to others. :)