cylinder impostor in GLSL - opengl

I am developing a small tool for 3D visualization of molecules.
For my project i choose to make a thing in the way of what Mr "Brad Larson" did with his Apple software "Molecules". A link where you can find a small presentation of the technique used : Brad Larsson software presentation
For doing my job i must compute sphere impostor and cylinder impostor.
For the moment I have succeed to do the "Sphere Impostor" with the help of another tutorial Lies and Impostors
for summarize the computing of the sphere impostor : first we send a "sphere position" and the "sphere radius" to the "vertex shader" which will create in the camera-space an square which always face the camera, after that we send our square to the fragment shader where we use a simple ray tracing to find which fragment of the square is included in the sphere, and finally we compute the normal and the position of the fragment to compute lighting. (another thing we also write the gl_fragdepth for giving a good depth to our impostor sphere !)
But now i am blocked in the computing of the cylinder impostor, i try to do a parallel between the sphere impostor and the cylinder impostor but i don't find anything, my problem is that for the sphere it was some easy because the sphere is always the same no matter how we see it, we will always see the same thing : "a circle" and another thing is that the sphere was perfectly defined by Math then we can find easily the position and the normal for computing lighting and create our impostor.
For the cylinder it's not the same thing, and i failed to find a hint to modeling a form which can be used as "cylinder impostor", because the cylinder shows many different forms depending on the angle we see it !
so my request is to ask you about a solution or an indication for my problem of "cylinder impostor".

In addition to pygabriels answer I want to share a standalone implementation using the mentioned shader code from Blaine Bell (PyMOL, Schrödinger, Inc.).
The approach, explained by pygabriel, also can be improved. The bounding box can be aligned in such a way, that it always faces to the viewer. Only two faces are visible at most. Hence, only 6 vertices (ie. two faces made up of 4 triangles) are needed.
See picture here, the box (its direction vector) always faces to the viewer:
Image: Aligned bounding box
For source code, download: cylinder impostor source code
The code does not cover round caps and orthographic projections. It uses geometry shader for vertex generation. You can use the shader code under the PyMOL license agreement.

I know this question is more than one-year old, but I'd still like to give my 2 cents.
I was able to produce cylinder impostors with another technique, I took inspiration from pymol's code. Here's the basic strategy:
1) You want to draw a bounding box (a cuboid) for the cylinder. To do that you need 6 faces, that translates in 18 triangles that translates in 36 triangle vertices. Assuming that you don't have access to geometry shaders, you pass to a vertex shader 36 times the starting point of the cylinder, 36 times the direction of the cylinder, and for each of those vertex you pass the corresponding point of the bounding box. For example a vertex associated with point (0, 0, 0) means that it will be transformed in the lower-left-back corner of the bounding box, (1,1,1) means the diagonally opposite point etc..
2) In the vertex shader, you can construct the points of the cylinder, by displacing each vertex (you passed 36 equal vertices) according to the corresponding points you passed in.
At the end of this step you should have a bounding box for the cylinder.
3) Here you have to reconstruct the points on the visible surface of the bounding box. From the point you obtain, you have to perform a ray-cylinder intersection.
4) From the intersection point you can reconstruct the depth and the normal. You also have to discard intersection points that are found outside of the bounding box (this can happen when you view the cylinder along its axis, the intersection point will go infinitely far).
By the way it's a very hard task, if somebody is interested here's the source code:
https://github.com/chemlab/chemlab/blob/master/chemlab/graphics/renderers/shaders/cylinderimp.frag
https://github.com/chemlab/chemlab/blob/master/chemlab/graphics/renderers/shaders/cylinderimp.vert

A cylinder impostor can actually be done just the same way as a sphere, like Nicol Bolas did it in his tutorial. You can make a square facing the camera and colour it that it will look like a cylinder, just the same way as Nicol did it for spheres. And it's not that hard.
The way it is done is ray-tracing of course. Notice that a cylinder facing upwards in camera space is kinda easy to implement. For example intersection with the side can be projected to the xz plain, it's a 2D problem of a line intersecting with a circle. Getting the top and bottom isn't harder either, the z coordinate of the intersection is given, so you actually know the intersection point of the ray and the circle's plain, all you have to do is to check if its inside the circle. And basically, that's it, you get two points, and return the closer one (the normals are pretty trivial too).
And when it comes to an arbitrary axis, it turns out to be almost the same problem. When you solve equations at the fixed axis cylinder, you are solving them for a parameter that describes how long do you have to go from a given point in a given direction to reach the cylinder. From the "definition" of it, you should notice that this parameter doesn't change if you rotate the world. So you can rotate the arbitrary axis to become the y axis, solve the problem in a space where equations are easier, get the parameter for the line equation in that space, but return the result in camera space.
You can download the shaderfiles from here. Just an image of it in action:
The code where the magic happens (It's only long 'cos it's full of comments, but the code itself is max 50 lines):
void CylinderImpostor(out vec3 cameraPos, out vec3 cameraNormal)
{
// First get the camera space direction of the ray.
vec3 cameraPlanePos = vec3(mapping * max(cylRadius, cylHeight), 0.0) + cameraCylCenter;
vec3 cameraRayDirection = normalize(cameraPlanePos);
// Now transform data into Cylinder space wherethe cyl's symetry axis is up.
vec3 cylCenter = cameraToCylinder * cameraCylCenter;
vec3 rayDirection = normalize(cameraToCylinder * cameraPlanePos);
// We will have to return the one from the intersection of the ray and circles,
// and the ray and the side, that is closer to the camera. For that, we need to
// store the results of the computations.
vec3 circlePos, sidePos;
vec3 circleNormal, sideNormal;
bool circleIntersection = false, sideIntersection = false;
// First check if the ray intersects with the top or bottom circle
// Note that if the ray is parallel with the circles then we
// definitely won't get any intersection (but we would divide with 0).
if(rayDirection.y != 0.0){
// What we know here is that the distance of the point's y coord
// and the cylCenter is cylHeight, and the distance from the
// y axis is less than cylRadius. So we have to find a point
// which is on the line, and match these conditions.
// The equation for the y axis distances:
// rayDirection.y * t - cylCenter.y = +- cylHeight
// So t = (+-cylHeight + cylCenter.y) / rayDirection.y
// About selecting the one we need:
// - Both has to be positive, or no intersection is visible.
// - If both are positive, we need the smaller one.
float topT = (+cylHeight + cylCenter.y) / rayDirection.y;
float bottomT = (-cylHeight + cylCenter.y) / rayDirection.y;
if(topT > 0.0 && bottomT > 0.0){
float t = min(topT,bottomT);
// Now check for the x and z axis:
// If the intersection is inside the circle (so the distance on the xz plain of the point,
// and the center of circle is less than the radius), then its a point of the cylinder.
// But we can't yet return because we might get a point from the the cylinder side
// intersection that is closer to the camera.
vec3 intersection = rayDirection * t;
if( length(intersection.xz - cylCenter.xz) <= cylRadius ) {
// The value we will (optianally) return is in camera space.
circlePos = cameraRayDirection * t;
// This one is ugly, but i didn't have better idea.
circleNormal = length(circlePos - cameraCylCenter) <
length((circlePos - cameraCylCenter) + cylAxis) ? cylAxis : -cylAxis;
circleIntersection = true;
}
}
}
// Find the intersection of the ray and the cylinder's side
// The distance of the point and the y axis is sqrt(x^2 + z^2), which has to be equal to cylradius
// (rayDirection.x*t - cylCenter.x)^2 + (rayDirection.z*t - cylCenter.z)^2 = cylRadius^2
// So its a quadratic for t (A*t^2 + B*t + C = 0) where:
// A = rayDirection.x^2 + rayDirection.z^2 - if this is 0, we won't get any intersection
// B = -2*rayDirection.x*cylCenter.x - 2*rayDirection.z*cylCenter.z
// C = cylCenter.x^2 + cylCenter.z^2 - cylRadius^2
// It will give two results, we need the smaller one
float A = rayDirection.x*rayDirection.x + rayDirection.z*rayDirection.z;
if(A != 0.0) {
float B = -2*(rayDirection.x*cylCenter.x + rayDirection.z*cylCenter.z);
float C = cylCenter.x*cylCenter.x + cylCenter.z*cylCenter.z - cylRadius*cylRadius;
float det = (B * B) - (4 * A * C);
if(det >= 0.0){
float sqrtDet = sqrt(det);
float posT = (-B + sqrtDet)/(2*A);
float negT = (-B - sqrtDet)/(2*A);
float IntersectionT = min(posT, negT);
vec3 Intersect = rayDirection * IntersectionT;
if(abs(Intersect.y - cylCenter.y) < cylHeight){
// Again it's in camera space
sidePos = cameraRayDirection * IntersectionT;
sideNormal = normalize(sidePos - cameraCylCenter);
sideIntersection = true;
}
}
}
// Now get the results together:
if(sideIntersection && circleIntersection){
bool circle = length(circlePos) < length(sidePos);
cameraPos = circle ? circlePos : sidePos;
cameraNormal = circle ? circleNormal : sideNormal;
} else if(sideIntersection){
cameraPos = sidePos;
cameraNormal = sideNormal;
} else if(circleIntersection){
cameraPos = circlePos;
cameraNormal = circleNormal;
} else
discard;
}

From what I can understand of the paper, I would interpret it as follows.
An impostor cylinder, viewed from any angle has the following characteristics.
From the top, it is a circle. So considering you'll never need to view a cylinder top down, you don't need to render anything.
From the side, it is a rectangle. The pixel shader only needs to compute illumination as normal.
From any other angle, it is a rectangle (the same one computed in step 2) that curves. Its curvature can be modeled inside the pixel shader as the curvature of the top ellipse. This curvature can be considered as simply an offset of each "column" in texture space, depending on viewing angle. The minor axis of this ellipse can be computed by multiplying the major axis (thickness of the cylinder) with a factor of the current viewing angle (angle / 90), assuming that 0 means you're viewing the cylinder side-on.
Viewing angles. I have only taken the 0-90 case into account in the math below, but the other cases are trivially different.
Given the viewing angle (phi) and the diameter of the cylinder (a) here's how the shader needs to warp the Y-Axis in texture space Y = b' sin(phi). And b' = a * (phi / 90). The cases phi = 0 and phi = 90 should never be rendered.
Of course, I haven't taken the length of this cylinder into account - which would depend on your particular projection and is not an image-space problem.

Related

Frustum Culling Bug

So I've implemented Frustum Culling in my game engine and I'm experiencing a strange bug. I am rendering a building that is segmented into chunks and I'm only rendering the chunks which are in the frustum. My camera starts at around (-.033, 11.65, 2.2) and everything looks fine. I start moving around and there is no flickering. When I set a breakpoint in the frustum culling code I can see that it is indeed culling some of the meshes. Everything seems great. Then when I reach the center of the building, around (3.9, 4.17, 2.23) meshes start to disappear that are in view. The same is true on the other side as well. I can't figure out why this bug could exist.
I implement frustum culling by using the extraction method listed here Extracting View Frustum Planes (Gribb & Hartmann method). I had to use glm::inverse() rather than transpose as it suggested and I think the matrix math was given for row-major matrices so I flipped that. All in all my frustum plane calculation looks like
std::vector<Mesh*> render_meshes;
auto comboMatrix = proj * glm::inverse(view * model);
glm::vec4 p_planes[6];
p_planes[0] = comboMatrix[3] + comboMatrix[0]; //left
p_planes[1] = comboMatrix[3] - comboMatrix[0]; //right
p_planes[2] = comboMatrix[3] + comboMatrix[1]; //bottom
p_planes[3] = comboMatrix[3] - comboMatrix[1]; //top
p_planes[4] = comboMatrix[3] + comboMatrix[2]; //near
p_planes[5] = comboMatrix[3] - comboMatrix[2]; //far
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++){
p_planes[i] = glm::normalize(p_planes[i]);
}
for (auto mesh : meshes) {
if (!frustum_cull(mesh, p_planes)) {
render_meshes.emplace_back(mesh);
}
}
I then decide to cull each mesh based on its bounding box (as calculated by ASSIMP with the aiProcess_GenBoundingBoxes flag) as follows (returning true means culled)
glm::vec3 vmin, vmax;
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
// X axis
if (p_planes[i].x > 0) {
vmin.x = m->getBBoxMin().x;
vmax.x = m->getBBoxMax().x;
}
else {
vmin.x = m->getBBoxMax().x;
vmax.x = m->getBBoxMin().x;
}
// Y axis
if (p_planes[i].y > 0) {
vmin.y = m->getBBoxMin().y;
vmax.y = m->getBBoxMax().y;
}
else {
vmin.y = m->getBBoxMax().y;
vmax.y = m->getBBoxMin().y;
}
// Z axis
if (p_planes[i].z > 0) {
vmin.z = m->getBBoxMin().z;
vmax.z = m->getBBoxMax().z;
}
else {
vmin.z = m->getBBoxMax().z;
vmax.z = m->getBBoxMin().z;
}
if (glm::dot(glm::vec3(p_planes[i]), vmin) + p_planes[i][3] > 0)
return true;
}
return false;
Any guidance?
Update 1: Normalizing the full vec4 representing the plane is incorrect as only the vec3 represents the normal of the plane. Further, normalization is not necessary for this instance as we only care about the sign of the distance (not the magnitude).
It is also important to note that I should be using the rows of the matrix not the columns. I am achieving this by replacing
p_planes[0] = comboMatrix[3] + comboMatrix[0];
with
p_planes[0] = glm::row(comboMatrix, 3) + glm::row(comboMatrix, 0);
in all instances.
You are using GLM incorrectly. As per the paper of Gribb and Hartmann, you can extract the plane equations as a sum or difference of different rows of the matrix, but in glm, mat4 foo; foo[n] will yield the n-th column (similiar to how GLSL is designed).
This here
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++){
p_planes[i] = glm::normalize(p_planes[i]);
}
also doesn't make sense, since glm::normalize(vec4) will simply normalize a 4D vector. This will result in the plane to be shifted around along its normal direction. Only thexyz components must be brought to unit length, and w must be scaled accordingly. It is even explained in details in the paper itself. However, since you only need to know on which half-space a point lies, normalizing the plane equation is a waste of cycles, you only care about the sign, not the maginitude of the value anyway.
After following #derhass solution for normalizing the planes correctly for intersection tests you would do as follows
For bounding box plane intersection after projecting your box onto that plane which we call p and after calculating the midpoint of the box say m and after calculating the distance of that mid point from the plane say d to check for intersection we do
d<=p
But for frustum culling we just don't want our box to NOT intersect wih our frustum plane but we want it to be at -p distance from our plane and only then we know for sure that NO PART of our box is intersecting our plane that is
if(d<=-p)//then our box is fully not intersecting our plane so we don't draw it or cull it[d will be negative if the midpoint lies on the other side of our plane]
Similarly for triangles we have check if the distance of ALL 3 points of the triangle from the plane are negative.
To project a box onto a plane we take the 3 axises[x,y,z UNIT VECTORS] of the box,scale them by the boxes respective HALF width,height,depth and find the sum of each of their dot products[Take only the positive magnitude of each dot product NO SIGNED DISTANCE] with the planes normal which will be your 'p'
Not with the above approach for an AABB you can also cull against OOBB's with the same approach cause only the axises will change.
EDIT:
how to project a bounding box onto a plane?
Let's consider an AABB for our example
It has the following parameters
Lower extent Min(x,y,z)
Upper extent Max(x,y,z)
Up Vector U=(0,1,0)
Left Vector. L=(1,0,0)
Front Vector. F=(0,0,1)
Step 1: calculate half dimensions
half_width=(Max.x-Min.x)/2;
half_height=(Max.y-Min.y)/2;
half_depth=(Max.z-Min.z)/2;
Step 2: Project each individual axis of the box onto the plane normal,take only the positive magnitude of each dot product scaled by each half dimension and find the total sum. make sure both the box axis and the plane normal are unit vectors.
float p=(abs(dot(L,N))*half_width)+
(abs(dot(U,N))*half_height)+
(abs(dot(F,N))*half_depth);
abs() returns absolute magnitude we want it to be positive
because we are dealing with distances
Where N is the planes normal unit vector
Step 3: compute mid point of box
M=(Min+Max)/2;
Step 4: compute distance of the mid point from plane
d=dot(M,N)+plane.w
Step 5: do the check
d<=-p //return true i.e don't render or do culling
U can see how to use his for OOBB where the U,F,L vectors are the axises of the OOBB and the centre(mid point) and half dimensions are parameters you pass in manually
For an sphere as well you would calculate the distance of the spheres center from the plane (called d) but do the check
d<=-r //radius of the sphere
Put this in an function called outside(Plane,Bounds) which returns true if the bounds is fully outside the plane then for each of the 6 planes
bool is_inside_frustum()
{
for(Plane plane:frustum_planes)
{
if(outside(plane,AABB))
{
return false
}
}
return true;
}

World position pointed by view camera vector

I've implemented a fps camera based on the up, right and view vectors from this.
Right now I want to be able to interact with the world by placing cubes in a minecraft style.
My lookAt vector is the sum of the view vector and the camera position, so my first attempt was to draw a cube at lookAt, but this is causing a strange behaviour.
I compute every vector like in the web I mentioned (such that lookAt = camera_position + view_direction) but the cube drawn is always arround me. I've tried several things like actually placing it (rounding the lookAt) and it appears near the wanted position but not at the place i'm looking at.
Given these vectors, how can I draw that's centered at the position that my camera is looking but a little bit further (exactly like minecraft)?
but the cube drawn is always arround me.
Yeah and that's obvious. You place cubes on the sphere surface of radius view_direction with center at camera_position.
Given these vectors, how can I draw that's centered at the position
that my camera is looking but a little bit further (exactly like
minecraft)?
You need to place cubes at the intersection of the view vector with the scene geometry. In the simplest case, it can be just "ground" plane, so you need intersect view vector with "ground" plane. Then you need to round the intersection xyz coordinates to the nearest grid node xyz = round(xyz / cubexyz)*cubexyz where cubexyz - cube size.
Approximate code:
Vector3D intersectPoint(Vector3D rayVector, Vector3D rayPoint, Vector3D planeNormal, Vector3D planePoint) {
Vector3D diff = rayPoint - planePoint;
double prod1 = diff.dot(planeNormal);
double prod2 = rayVector.dot(planeNormal);
double prod3 = prod1 / prod2;
return rayPoint - rayVector * prod3;
}
.......
Vector3D cubePos = intersectPoint(view_direction, camera_position, Vector3D(0, 1, 0), Vector3D(0, 0, 0));
cubePos = round(cubePos / cubeSize) * cubeSize;
AddCube(cubePos);
It's hard to tell without having images to look at, but lookAt is most likely your normalized forward vector? If i understood you correctly, you'd want to do something like objectpos = camerapos + forward * 10f (where 10f is the distance you want to place the object in front of you in 3d space units) to make sure that it's placed a few units in front of your fps controller.
actually, if view_direction is your normalized forward vector and your lookAt is camera_pos + view_direction, then you'd end up with something very close to your camera position, which would explain why the cube spawns inside you. either way, my suggestion should still work :)

How to handle incorrect index calculation for discretized ray tracing?

The situation si as follows. I am trying to implement a linear voxel search in a glsl shader for efficient voxel ray tracing. In toehr words, I have a 3D texture and I am ray tracing on it but I am trying to ray trace such that I only ever check voxels intersected by the ray once.
To this effect I have written a program with the following results:
Not efficient but correct:
The above image was obtained by adding a small epsilon ray multiple times and sampling from the texture on each iteration. Which produces the correct results but it's very inefficient.
That would look like:
loop{
start += direction*0.01;
sample(start);
}
To make it efficient I decided to instead implement the following lookup function:
float bound(float val)
{
if(val >= 0)
return voxel_size;
return 0;
}
float planeIntersection(vec3 ray, vec3 origin, vec3 n, vec3 q)
{
n = normalize(n);
if(dot(ray,n)!=0)
return (dot(q,n)-dot(n,origin))/dot(ray,n);
return -1;
}
vec3 get_voxel(vec3 start, vec3 direction)
{
direction = normalize(direction);
vec3 discretized_pos = ivec3((start*1.f/(voxel_size))) * voxel_size;
vec3 n_x = vec3(sign(direction.x), 0,0);
vec3 n_y = vec3(0, sign(direction.y),0);
vec3 n_z = vec3(0, 0,sign(direction.z));
float bound_x, bound_y, bound_z;
bound_x = bound(direction.x);
bound_y = bound(direction.y);
bound_z = bound(direction.z);
float t_x, t_y, t_z;
t_x = planeIntersection(direction, start, n_x,
discretized_pos+vec3(bound_x,0,0));
t_y = planeIntersection(direction, start, n_y,
discretized_pos+vec3(0,bound_y,0));
t_z = planeIntersection(direction, start, n_z,
discretized_pos+vec3(0,0,bound_z));
if(t_x < 0)
t_x = 1.f/0.f;
if(t_y < 0)
t_y = 1.f/0.f;
if(t_z < 0)
t_z = 1.f/0.f;
float t = min(t_x, t_y);
t = min(t, t_z);
return start + direction*t;
}
Which produces the following result:
Notice the triangle aliasing on the left side of some surfaces.
It seems this aliasing occurs because some coordinates are not being set to their correct voxel.
For example modifying the truncation part as follows:
vec3 discretized_pos = ivec3((start*1.f/(voxel_size)) - vec3(0.1)) * voxel_size;
Creates:
So it has fixed the issue for some surfaces and caused it for others.
I wanted to know if there is a way in which I can correct this truncation so that this error does not happen.
Update:
I have narrowed down the issue a bit. Observe the following image:
The numbers represent the order in which I expect the boxes to be visited.
As you can see for some of the points the sampling of the fifth box seems to be ommitted.
The following is the sampling code:
vec4 grabVoxel(vec3 pos)
{
pos *= 1.f/base_voxel_size;
pos.x /= (width-1);
pos.y /= (depth-1);
pos.z /= (height-1);
vec4 voxelVal = texture(voxel_map, pos);
return voxelVal;
}
yep that was the +/- rounding I was talking about in my comments somewhere in your previous questions related to this. What you need to do is having step equal to grid size in one of the axises (and test 3 times once for |dx|=1 then for |dy|=1 and lastly |dz|=1).
Also you should create a debug draw 2D slice through your map to actually see where the hits for a single specific test ray occurred. Now based on direction of ray in each axis you set the rounding rules separately. Without this you are just blindly patching one case and corrupting other two ...
Now actually Look at this (I linked it to your before but you clearly did not):
Wolf and Doom ray casting techniques
especially pay attention to:
On the right It shows you how to compute the ray step (your epsilon). You simply scale the ray direction so one of the coordinate is +/-1. For simplicity start with 2D slice through your map. The red dot is ray start position. Green is ray step vector for vertical grid lines hits and red is for horizontal grid lines hits (z will be analogically the same).
Now you should add the 2D overview of your map through some height slice that is visible (like on the image on the left) add a dot or marker to each intersection detected but distinguish between x,y and z hits by color. Do this for single ray only (I use the center of view ray). Fist handle view when you look at X+ directions than X- and when done move to Y,Z ...
In my GLSL volumetric 3D back raytracer I also linked you before look at these lines:
if (dir.x<0.0) { p+=dir*(((floor(p.x*n)-_zero)*_n)-ray_pos.x)/dir.x; nnor=vec3(+1.0,0.0,0.0); }
if (dir.x>0.0) { p+=dir*((( ceil(p.x*n)+_zero)*_n)-ray_pos.x)/dir.x; nnor=vec3(-1.0,0.0,0.0); }
if (dir.y<0.0) { p+=dir*(((floor(p.y*n)-_zero)*_n)-ray_pos.y)/dir.y; nnor=vec3(0.0,+1.0,0.0); }
if (dir.y>0.0) { p+=dir*((( ceil(p.y*n)+_zero)*_n)-ray_pos.y)/dir.y; nnor=vec3(0.0,-1.0,0.0); }
if (dir.z<0.0) { p+=dir*(((floor(p.z*n)-_zero)*_n)-ray_pos.z)/dir.z; nnor=vec3(0.0,0.0,+1.0); }
if (dir.z>0.0) { p+=dir*((( ceil(p.z*n)+_zero)*_n)-ray_pos.z)/dir.z; nnor=vec3(0.0,0.0,-1.0); }
they are how I did this. As you can see I use different rounding/flooring rule for each of the 6 cases. This way you handle case without corrupting the other. The rounding rule depends on a lot of stuff like how is your coordinate system offseted to (0,0,0) and more so it might be different in your code but the if conditions should be the same. Also as you can see I am handling this by offsetting the ray start position a bit instead of having these conditions inside the ray traversal loop castray.
That macro cast ray and look for intersections with grid and on top of that actually zsorts the intersections and use the first valid one (that is what l,ll are for and no other conditions or combination of ray results are needed). So my way of deal with this is cast ray for each type of intersection (x,y,z) starting on the first intersection with the grid for the same axis. You need to take into account the starting offset so the l,ll resembles the intersection distance to real start of ray not to offseted one ...
Also a good idea is to do this on CPU side first and when 100% working port to GLSL as in GLSL is very hard to debug things like this.

Determining Resting contact between sphere and plane when using external forces

This question has one major question, and one minor question. I believe I am right in either question from my research, but not both.
For my physics loop, the first thing I do is apply a gravitational force to my TotalForce for a rigid body object. I then check for collisions using my TotalForce and my Velocity. My TotalForce is reset to (0, 0, 0) after every physics loop, although I will keep my velocity.
I am familiar with doing a collision check between a moving sphere and a static plane when using only velocity. However, what if I have other forces besides velocity, such as gravity? I put the other forces into TotalForces (right now I only have gravity). To compensate for that, when I determine that the sphere is not currently overlapping the plane, I do
Vector3 forces = (sphereTotalForces + sphereVelocity);
Vector3 forcesDT = forces * fElapsedTime;
float denom = Vec3Dot(&plane->GetNormal(), &forces);
However, this can be problematic for how I thought was suppose to be resting contact. I thought resting contact was computed by
denom * dist == 0.0f
Where dist is
float dist = Vec3Dot(&plane->GetNormal(), &spherePosition) - plane->d;
(For reference, the obvious denom * dist > 0.0f meaning the sphere is moving away from the plane)
However, this can never be true. Even when there appears to be "resting contact". This is due to my forces calculation above always having at least a .y of -9.8 (my gravity). When when moving towards a plane with a normal of (0, 1, 0) will produce a y of denom of -9.8.
My question is
1) Am I calculating resting contact correctly with how I mentioned with my first two code snippets?
If so,
2) How should my "other forces" such as gravity be used? Is my use of TotalForces incorrect?
For reference, my timestep is
mAcceleration = mTotalForces / mMass;
mVelocity += mAcceleration * fElapsedTime;
Vector3 translation = (mVelocity * fElapsedTime);
EDIT
Since it appears that some suggested changes will change my collision code, here is how i detect my collision states
if(fabs(dist) <= sphereRadius)
{ // There already is a collision }
else
{
Vector3 forces = (sphereTotalForces + sphereVelocity);
float denom = Vec3Dot(&plane->GetNormal(), &forces);
// Resting contact
if(dist == 0) { }
// Sphere is moving away from plane
else if(denom * dist > 0.0f) { }
// There will eventually be a collision
else
{
float fIntersectionTime = (sphereRadius - dist) / denom;
float r;
if(dist > 0.0f)
r = sphereRadius;
else
r = -sphereRadius;
Vector3 collisionPosition = spherePosition + fIntersectionTime * sphereVelocity - r * planeNormal;
}
}
You should use if(fabs(dist) < 0.0001f) { /* collided */ } This is to acocunt for floating point accuracies. You most certainly would not get an exact 0.0f at most angles or contact.
the value of dist if negative, is in fact the actual amount you need to shift the body back onto the surface of the plane in case it goes through the plane surface. sphere.position = sphere.position - plane.Normal * fabs(dist);
Once you have moved it back to the surface, you can optionally make it bounce in the opposite direction about the plane normal; or just stay on the plane.
parallel_vec = Vec3.dot(plane.normal, -sphere.velocity);
perpendicular_vec = sphere.velocity - parallel_vec;
bounce_velocity = parallel - perpendicular_vec;
you cannot blindly do totalforce = external_force + velocity unless everything has unit mass.
EDIT:
To fully define a plane in 3D space, you plane structure should store a plane normal vector and a point on the plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) .
Vector3 planeToSphere = sphere.point - plane.point;
float dist = Vector3.dot(plane.normal, planeToSphere) - plane.radius;
if(dist < 0)
{
// collided.
}
I suggest you study more Maths first if this is the part you do not know.
NB: Sorry, the formatting is messed up... I cannot mark it as code block.
EDIT 2:
Based on my understanding on your code, either you are naming your variables badly or as I mentioned earlier, you need to revise your maths and physics theory. This line does not do anything useful.
float denom = Vec3Dot(&plane->GetNormal(), &forces);
A at any instance of time, a force on the sphere can be in any direction at all unrelated to the direction of travel. so denom essentially calculates the amount of force in the direction of the plane surface, but tells you nothing about whether the ball will hit the plane. e.g. gravity is downwards, but a ball can have upward velocity and hit a plane above. With that, you need to Vec3Dot(plane.normal, velocity) instead.
Alternatively, Mark Phariss and Gerhard Powell had already give you the physics equation for linear kinematics, you can use those to directly calculate future positions, velocity and time of impact.
e.g. s = 0.5 * (u + v) * t; gives the displacement after future time t. compare that displacement with distance from plane and you get whether the sphere will hit the plane. So again, I suggest you read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motion and the easy stuff first then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics .
Yet another method, if you expect or assume no other forces to act on the sphere, then you do a ray / plane collision test to find the time t at which it will hit the plane, in that case, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-plane_intersection .
There will always be -9.8y of gravity acting on the sphere. In the case of a suspended sphere this will result in downwards acceleration (net force is non-zero). In the case of the sphere resting on the plane this will result in the plane exerting a normal force on the sphere. If the plane was perfectly horizontal with the sphere at rest this normal force would be exactly +9.8y which would perfectly cancel the force of gravity. For a sphere at rest on a non-horizontal plane the normal force is 9.8y * cos(angle) (angle is between -90 and +90 degrees).
Things get more complicated when a moving sphere hits a plane as the normal force will depend on the velocity and the plane/sphere material properties. Depending what your application requirements are you could either ignore this or try some things with the normal forces and see how it works.
For your specific questions:
I believe contact is more specifically just when dist == 0.0f, that is the sphere and plane are making contact. I assume your collision takes into account that the sphere may move past the plane in any physics time step.
Right now you don't appear to have any normal forces being put on the sphere from the plane when they are making contact. I would do this by checking for contact (dist == 0.0f) and if true adding the normal force to the sphere. In the simple case of a falling sphere onto a near horizontal plane (angle between -90 and +90 degrees) it would just be sphereTotalForces += Vector3D(0, 9.8 * cos(angle), 0).
Edit:
From here your equation for dist to compute the distance from the edge of sphere to the plane may not be correct depending on the details of your problem and code (which isn't given). Assuming your plane goes through the origin the correct equation is:
dist = Vec3Dot(&spherePosition, &plane->GetNormal()) - sphereRadius;
This is the same as your equation if plane->d == sphereRadius. Note that if the plane is not at the origin then use:
D3DXVECTOR3 vecTemp(spherePosition - pointOnPlane);
dist = Vec3Dot(&vecTemp, &plane->GetNormal()) - sphereRadius;
The exact solution to this problem involves some pretty serious math. If you want an approximate solution I strongly recommend developing it in stages.
1) Make sure your sim works without gravity. The ball must travel through space and have inelastic (or partially elastic) collisions with angled frictionless surfaces.
2) Introduce gravity. This will change ballistic trajectories from straight lines to parabolae, and introduce sliding, but it won't have much effect on collisions.
3) Introduce static and kinetic friction (independently). These will change the dynamics of sliding. Don't worry about friction in collisions for now.
4) Give the ball angular velocity and a moment of inertia. This is a big step. Make sure you can apply torques to it and get realistic angular accelerations. Note that realistic behavior of a spinning mass can be counter-intuitive.
5) Try sliding the ball along a level surface, under gravity. If you've done everything right, its angular velocity will gradually increase and its linear velocity gradually decrease, until it breaks into a roll. Experiment with giving the ball some initial spin ("draw", "follow" or "english").
6) Try the same, but on a sloped surface. This is a relatively small step.
If you get this far you'll have a pretty realistic sim. Don't try to skip any of the steps, you'll only give yourself headaches.
Answers to your physics problems:
f = mg + other_f; // m = mass, g = gravity (9.8)
a = f / m; // a = acceleration
v = u + at; // v = new speed, u = old speed, t = delta time
s = 0.5 * (u + v) *t;
When you have a collision, you change the both speeds to 0 (or v and u = -(u * 0.7) if you want it to bounce).
Because speed = 0, the ball is standing still.
If it is 2D or 3D, then you just change the speed in the direction of the normal of the surface to 0, and keep the parallel speed the same. That will result in the ball rolling on the surface.
You must move the ball to the surface if it cuts the surface. You can make collision distance to a small amount (for example 0.001) to make sure it stay still.
http://www.physicsforidiots.com/dynamics.html#vuat
Edit:
NeHe is an amazing source of game engine design:
Here is a page on collision detection with very good descriptions:
http://nehe.gamedev.net/tutorial/collision_detection/17005/
Edit 2: (From NeHe)
double DotProduct=direction.dot(plane._Normal); // Dot Product Between Plane Normal And Ray Direction
Dsc=(plane._Normal.dot(plane._Position-position))/DotProduct; // Find Distance To Collision Point
Tc= Dsc*T / Dst
Collision point= Start + Velocity*Tc
I suggest after that to take a look at erin cato articles (the author of Box2D) and Glenn fiedler articles as well.
Gravity is a strong acceleration and results in strong forces. It is easy to have faulty simulations because of floating imprecisions, variable timesteps and euler integration, very quickly.
The repositionning of the sphere at the plane surface in case it starts to burry itself passed the plane is mandatory, I noticed myself that it is better to do it only if velocity of the sphere is in opposition to the plane normal (this can be compared to face culling in 3D rendering: do not take into account backfaced planes).
also, most physics engine stops simulation on idle bodies, and most games never take gravity into account while moving, only when falling. They use "navigation meshes", and custom systems as long as they are sure the simulated objet is sticking to its "ground".
I don't know of a flawless physics simulator out there, there will always be an integration explosion, a missed collision (look for "sweeped collision").... it takes a lot of empirical fine-tweaking.
Also I suggest you look for "impulses" which is a method to avoid to tweak manually the velocity when encountering a collision.
Also take a look to "what every computer scientist should know about floating points"
good luck, you entered a mine field, randomly un-understandable, finger biting area of numerical computer science :)
For higher fidelity (wouldn't solve your main problem), I'd change your timestep to
mAcceleration = mTotalForces / mMass;
Vector3 translation = (mVelocity * fElapsedTime) + 0.5 * mAcceleration * pow(fElapsedTime, 2);
mVelocity += mAcceleration * fElapsedTime;
You mentioned that the sphere was a rigid body; are you also modeling the plane as rigid? If so, you'd have an infinite point force at the moment of contact & perfectly elastic collision without some explicit dissipation of momentum.
Force & velocity cannot be summed (incompatible units); if you're just trying to model the kinematics, you can disregard mass and work with acceleration & velocity only.
Assuming the sphere is simply dropped onto a horizontal plane with a perfectly inelastic collision (no bounce), you could do [N.B., I don't really know C syntax, so this'll be Pythonic]
mAcceleration = if isContacting then (0, 0, 0) else (0, -9.8, 0)
If you add some elasticity (say half momentum conserved) to the collision, it'd be more like
mAcceleration = (0, -9.8, 0) + if isContacting then (0, 4.9, 0)

move object along a Bézier path in 3d: rotation problem

in my opengl application i have a Bézier curve in 3d space and i want to to move an object along it.
everything it's ok a part of rotations: i have some problem in calculating them. in my mind the pipeline should be this:
find point on the Bézier (position vector)
find tangent, normal, binormal (frenet frame)
find the angle between tangent vector and x axis
(the same for normal and y axis and binormal and z axis)
push matrix
translate in position, rotate in angles, draw object
pop matrix
but it does not go as i expected: the rotations seems to be random and does not follow the curve.
any suggestions?
You're going to have problems with the Frenet frame, because, unfortunately, it is undefined when the curve is even momentarily straight
(has vanishing curvature), and it exhibits wild swings in orientation around points
where the osculating plane’s normal has major changes in direction, especially at inflection points, where the normal flips.
I'd recommend using something called a Bishop frame (you can Google it, and find out how to compute it in a discrete setting). It is also referred to as a parallel transport frame or a minimum rotation frame - it has the advantage that the frame is always defined, and it changes orientation in a controlled way.
I don't think the problems with Frenet frames necessarily explain the problems you are having. You should start with some easy test cases - Bezier curves that are confined to the XY plane, for example, and step through your calculations until you find what's wrong.
Instead of computing angles just push the frame into the modelview matrix. Normal, Binormal and Tangent go in the upper left 3x3 of the matrix, translation in the 4th column and element 4,4 is 1. Instead of Frenet frame use the already mentioned Bishop frame. So in code:
// assuming you manage your curve in a (opaque) struct Bezier
struct BezierCurve;
typedef float vec3[3];
void bezierEvaluate(BezierCurve *bezier, float t, vec3 normal, vec3 binormal, vec3 tangent, vec3 pos);
void apply_bezier_transform(Bezier *bezier, float t)
{
float M[16]; // OpenGL uses column major ordering
// and this code is a excellent example why it does so:
bezierEvaluate(bezier, t, &M[0], &M[4], &M[8], &M[12]);
M[3] = M[7] = M[11] = 0.;
M[15] = 1.;
glMultMatrixf(M);
}