Hi
How can I extrude cut (like solidworks) a 3D model?
Is there an easy way or I have to do some complex calculation?
What you want to do is part of a discipline called Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) and it's about one of the trickiest subjects of 3D graphics and processing. There are several approaches how to tackle the problem:
If you're just interested in rendering CSG in a raytracer things get actually quite easy: At every ray/surface intersection you increment/decrement a counter. CSG combinations can also be transformed into surface count. By compariring ray intersection counter and CSG surface count you can apply the CSG operations on the traced ray
If you're interested on doing CSG on triangulated models, the most common approach is to build BSP trees from the geometry and apply the CSG operations on the BSP. Then from the resulting BSP you recreate the mesh. This is how it's implemented in mesh based modellers (take a look at Blender's source code, which does exactly this)
CSG on analytical surfaces is extremely difficult. There are no closed solutions for the intersection of curves or curved surfaces. The best approach is to numerically find a number of sampling points in the intersection and fit a curve along the intersection. This can get numerically unstable.
Tesselation Phase Processing (this is what I implemented (or even invented maybe) for my 3D engine): When rendering curves or curved patches on 3D hardware, one usually must tesselate them into triangular meshes before. In this tesselation phase you can test if the edges of a newly created triangle intersect with curves/curved surfaces; use a few iterations in a Newton zero crossing solver to find the point of intersection of both curves/surfaces and store this as a sampling point at the edge for both patches involved (so that the tesselation of the other surface will share its vertices' positions with the first surface). After the first tesselation stage use a relaxation method (basically apply a Laplacian) on the vertices, while constraining them to the surface (remember that your surfaces are mathematical exact and it's very easy to fiddle with the variables of the surface, but use the resulting positions as metric). It works very well as long as not intersections with ordinary triangulated meshes are to be considered (each triangle of the mesh had to be turned into a surface patch, slowing down the method)
You tagged this OpenGL, so to get this straight: OpenGL can't help you there, as OpenGL is just drawing triangles, not processing complex geometry.
Citing OpenGl faq:
What is OpenGL?
OpenGL stands for Open Graphics
Library. It is an API for doing 3D
graphics.
In more specific terms, it is an API
that is used to "draw triangles on
your scene". In this age of GPUs, it
is about talking to the GPU so that it
does the job of drawing. It does not
deal with file formats. It does not
open bmp, png and any image format. It
does not open 3d object formats like
obj, max, maya. It does not do
animation. It does not handle
keyboard, mouse and any input devices.
It does not create a window, and so
on.
All that stuff should be handled by an
external library (GLUT is one example
that is used for creating and
destroying a window and handling mouse
and keyboard).
GL has gone through a number of
versions.
So the answer is no. Things like extrude cut are complex operations. You have to implement it by your own, ore use third party libraries.
Related
Given a 3D object in Computer graphics, whose surface is represented as a 3D triangular mesh (mesh of 3D triangle objects), I need to find the maximum continual Convex patches on the surface of the given 3D object.
I am using OpenGl to render the graphics within a C++ program. What kind of methods or algorithms should I use to find the convex patches.
I have to apply different colors to the different convex patches on the object to signify the selection.
Say I have a sphere then the whole sphere is one maximal convex patch. Any portion of the sphere surface will be a convex patch, by maximal I mean the maximum continuous convex patch that can be found. Well in the rendering, depending on the viewing angles, the maximal convex patches visible to the viewer will have to colored.
Start from any triangle. Traverse it's edge's and check that the angle between the two triangles is less than 180deg. If it is add it to the current selection and continue expanding.
The check is actually really simple if you use vector geometry. Say A - B is the common edge with C on the selected side and D on the other. Then just check if dot(cross((A-B), (D-B)), cross((A-B), (C-B)) < 0.
Unfortunately OpenGL doesn't help with object algorithms. It only handles converting triangles to pixels.
I need to do it using OpenGL
Then you're out of luck. OpenGL only draws points, lines and triangles. OpenGL is not a 3D modelling library, OpenGL is not a scene graph, OpenGL is not a graphics engine.
It does not do all purpose geometry processing (it may be possible to use a combination of geometry/tesselation shaders, transform feedback and compute shaders to do it, but it would be very cumbersome to implement).
I want to know the techniques used to render complex surfaces that can't be represented by a mathematical equation (like a car, ) in OpenGL. Do we create it by combining so many basic elements (sphere, cone, ...)? Or there are some other methods?
I am about to start creating an app that will render a 3D car and want to know where to start.
You can use a third-party tool, such as Blender to create models that can be exported and then rendered in OpenGL. These models are usually composed of triangles, but drawn with 3D tools analogous to 2D's pen and paper.
Here is a tutorial on the subject: OpenGL Model Tutorial
Yes, OpenGL produces images by drawing many basic elements (known as "primitives").
The most commonly used primitives are triangles and quadrilaterals (or "quads", which are commonly implemented as two triangles). (There are also provisions for drawing line and point primitives, but these are not typically used for drawing photorealistic surfaces.)
Complex surfaces are approximated with a mesh of triangles or quads. Hidden surface removal is typically done by using a depth map: primitives drawn closer to the camera inhibit and override more distant primitives on a per-pixel basis.
In order to reduce the tessellation level necessary to produce a good image, OpenGL supports interpolation of a (fictitious) tangent plane between triangle (and quad) corners. This cheap approximation, called a "shading normal", practically eliminates the faceted appearance that would otherwise mar a continuous surface approximated with a modest number of primitives.
It is very hard to design you object from scratch. OpenGL is polygon rendering machine. Usualy objects are represented by verteces for their 3D position and indices for how they conect obj file. You can find some obj files that represent a car for example or anything else and to render it. Also there is a alternative method for designing complex models using patches. Patches are used in CAD programs for better control over the model patches. To make more complex model you conect many patches together.
Is there a way to extract a point cloud from a rendered 3D Scene (using OPENGL)?
in Detail:
The input should be a rendered 3D Scene.
The output should be e.g a three dimensional array with vertices(x,y,z).
Mission possible or impossible?
Render your scene using an orthographic view so that all of it fits on screen at once.
Use a g-buffer (search for this term or "fat pixel" or "deferred rendering") to capture
(X,Y,Z, R, G, B, A) at each sample point in the framebuffer.
Read back your framebuffer and put the (X,Y,Z,R,G,B,A) tuple at each sample point in a
linear array.
You now have a point cloud sampled from your conventional geometry using OpenGL. Apart from the readback from the GPU to the host, this will be very fast.
Going further with this:
Use depth peeling (search for this term) to generate samples on surfaces that are not
nearest to the camera.
Repeat the rendering from several viewpoints (or equivalently for several rotations
of the scene) to be sure of capturing fragments from a the nooks and crannies of the
scene and append the points generated from each pass into one big linear array.
I think you should take your input data and manually multiply it by your transformation and modelview matrices. No need to use OpenGL for that, just some vector/matrices math.
If I understand correctly, you want to deconstruct a final rendering (2D) of a 3D scene. In general, there is no capability built-in to OpenGL that does this.
There are however many papers describing approaches to analyzing a 2D image to generate a 3D representation. This is for example what the Microsoft Kinect does to some extent. Look at the papers presented at previous editions of SIGGRAPH for a starting point. Many implementations probably make use of the GPU (OpenGL, DirectX, CUDA, etc.) to do their magic, but that's about it. For example, edge-detection filters to identify the visible edges of objects and histogram functions can run on the GPU.
Depending on your application domain, you might be in for something near impossible or there might be a shortcut you can use to identify shapes and vertices.
edit
I think you might have a misunderstanding of how OpenGL rendering works. The application produces and sends to OpenGL the vertices of triangles forming polygons and 3d objects. OpenGL then rasterizes (i.e. converts to pixels) these objects to form a 2d rendering of the 3d scene from a particular point of view with a particular field of view. When you say you want to retrieve a "point cloud" of the vertices, it's hard to understand what you want since you are responsible for producing these vertices in the first place!
I need to accelerate some programs that use intensive calculations where surface calculations from the intersection between cubes, spheres and similar are needed. Using CUDA I need to specify all the formuale I need, of course, in order to analytically calculate information related to intersections. But since I only need a good approximation of the resulting surface, I read about OpenGL can calculate or estimate such surfaces. I wonder if you could give me your opinion or point me to relevant references
If you just need to render those objects, you could use the stencil buffer to evaluate whatever boolean operations you need: http://www.opengl.org/resources/code/samples/advanced/advanced97/notes/node11.html
Any quantities that could be computed from either a perspective or orthographic projection of the intersection surface could be deduced from such a rendering together with its depth buffer. If you need to extract the whole intersection, you can try using depth peeling together with stencilled CSG to extract a layered representation of the complete intersection, though it can be very inaccurate on the parts of the surface which are parallel to the viewing direction and you will need to do some extra work to stitch the layers back together:
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10/opengl/src/dual_depth_peeling/doc/DualDepthPeeling.pdf
EDIT: This will work for arbitrary, free form surfaces and is a fairly standard technique. But it does have its limitations, in that the accuracy you get will be fairly poor and you may have to project onto multiple views in order to get some adequate covering of your object. As an example, here is an application to collision detection: http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/b.spanlang/ISBCICSOWH.pdf
OpenGL is of even less use here than CUDA or OpenCL, since it's primarily targeted at drawing triangular tesselated meshes. Of course you can do sophisticated geometrical computations in the various shader stages of modern OpenGL. The problem is, that the result of all those computations is a pixel based picture. There is a feedback mechanism to retrieve the processed vertex data, but that only gives you a mesh.
Intersections of anything planar or/and with spheres is actually quite easy and can be done analytically. The real hard stuff is intersecting freeform curved surfaces (Bezìer or NURBS). Those usually don't have a closed solution, so what you need to do is numerically aproximating a trim curve that best fits the intersection.
I've been using OpenGL since some time now for making 3D applications, but I never really understood the use of the GL_POINT and GL_LINES primitive drawing types for 3D games in the production phase.
(Where) are point and line primitives in OpenGL still used in modern games?
You know, OpenGL is not just for games and there are other kind of programs than just games. Think CAD programs, or map editors, where wireframes are still very usefull.
GL_POINTS are used in games for point sprites (either via the pointsprite functionality or by generating a quad from a point in the geometry shader) both for "sparkle" effects and volumetric clouds.
They are also used in some special algorithms just when, well... when points are needed. Such as in building histograms in the geometry shader as by the chapter in one of the later GPU Gems books. Or, for GPU instance culling via transform feedback.
GL_LINES have little use in games (mostly useful for CAD or modelling apps). Besides not being needed often, if they are needed, you will normally want lines with a thickness greater than 1, which is not well supported (read as: fast) on all implementations.
In such a case, one usually draws thick lines with triangle strips.
Who ever said those primitives were used in modern games?
GL_LINES is critical for wireframe views in 3D modeling tools.
(Where) are point and line primitives in OpenGL still used in modern games?
Where do you want them to be used?
Under standard methods, points can be used to build point sprites, which are 2D flatcards that always face the camera and are of a particular size. They are always square in window-space. Sadly, the OpenGL specification makes using them somewhat dubious, as point sprites are clipped based on the center of the point, not the size of the two triangles that are used to render it.
Lines are perfectly reasonable for line drawing. Once upon a time, lines weren't available in consumer hardware, but they have been around for many years now. Of course, antialiased line rendering (GL_LINE_SMOOTH) is another matter.
More importantly is the interaction of these things with geometry shaders. You can convert points into a quad. Or a triangle. Or whatever you want, really. Each "point" is just an execution of the geometry shader. You can have points which contain the position and radius of a sphere, and the geometry shader can output a window-aligned quad that is the appropriate size for the fragment shader to do some raytracing logic on it.
GL_POINTS just means "one vertex per geometry shader". GL_LINES means "two vertices per geometry shader." How you use it is up to you.
I'd say for debugging purposes, but that is just from my own perspective.
Some primitives can be used in areas where you don't think they can be applied, such as a particle system.
I agree with Pompe de velo about lines being useful for debugging. They can be useful when debugging AI and collision detection algorithms so that you can visualize the data that is being used by the AI or collision detection. Some example uses for AI, the lines can be used to show AI paths or path meshes. Lines can be used to show steering data that the AI is using. Lines can be used to show what an AI is aiming at. The data that is shown can be displayed in text form but sometimes it is easier to see it in visual form.
In most cases particles are based on GL_POINT, considering that there can be a huge number of particles on the screen it would be very expensive to use 4 vertices per particle, so GL_POINT solves this problem
GL_LINES good for debugging purposes, wireframe mode can be used in various cases. As mentioned above - in CAD apps, but if you're interesed in gamedev use - it's good for a scene editor.
In terms of collision detection, they come in handy when you want to visualize bounding volumes(boxes,spheres,k-dops) and contact manifolds in wireframe mode. Setting the colour of these primitives based on the status of collisions as well is incredibly useful.