I'm loading 3D objects (obj or 3ds or collada files) into my openGL application. The 3 environment is quite large (a few hundred metres in all axis').
My problem is that smaller 3D objects (i.e. in the order of ~< 1-2m ) don't appear to be depth-tested properly. Depending on the zoom of the camera, I can sometimes see the back face of the object (I have been using a simple cube for testing) or other faces becoming visible/invisible/torn. Please see the attached images for a better explanation.
I am led to believe the problem is due to mipmapping being enabled. I would either like to disable mipmapping (can someone suggest a simple, fast way to do this) or set the resolution to be greater for the mipmapped objects. Or am I barking up the wrong tree completely?
Thanks
Chris
That's the result of insufficient z-buffer precission, which is an issue in games that have huge worlds but (relatively) small objects. The immediate solution would be to try using a 24 bit z-buffer instead of a 16 bit one. Another way to tackle this would be to render the game world it two steps, first the big distant objects, then clearing the zbuffer and then drawing the closer objects.
This specific problem is called z-fighting by the way, here's a great resource on this issue: http://www.codermind.com/articles/Depth-buffer-tutorial.html
The take-away is the last paragraph of the article above:
the true issue is that you can't draw
both objects that are very far and
objects that are very near with the
same depth buffer equations. If you
want to draw very far objects then you
need to sacrifice your near view by
pushing it further. To avoid clipping
artifacts you can make your collision
envelope large enough so that your
clip plane will never intercept an
existing object within your frustum.
Or you can make object gradually
disappear with transparency as they
come near your clip plane.
If you want to keep near objects and
at the same time draw mountains (or
planets) in the far distance, then you
can cut your rendering in parts. First
drawing your far objects, then
clearing the depth buffer and
rendering the near objects with a
different z buffer.
Like Julio, I believe that this is a depth precision issues, not something related to mip-mapping. However, I suggest you start by adjusting your near and far clipping plane before changing anything else (You are probably already using a 24-bit depth buffer anyways, as that is the default on most drivers/cards). Particularly the near plane should be as far away as possible for your scene. Look for calls to glFrustum or gluPerspective.
Related
I have a texture and a mesh, if I apply the texture on the mesh, it tiles it continuously as one would expect. The offset for each tile is equal.
The problem:
Non-tilable texture or texture with some outstanding elements are looking repetitive and cheap.
Example:
Solution Attempt
My first attempt was to programatically generate a texture size of a mesh with randomised offsets for each tiles. Of course the size of the texture became a problem, let alone the GPU limitation of a single texture max size.
What I would like to do
I would like to know if there's a way to make a Unity shader or a material that would load a single texture and tile it with random offsets for each tile and do it only once to keep the performance high?
I believe you might try one of techniques invented by Inigo Quilez (http://www.iquilezles.org/www/articles/texturerepetition/texturerepetition.htm).
Basically, non-tilable textures and textures with some outstanding elements are different problems.
Non-tilable textures
There are 2 ways of solving it:
Fixing the texture itself;
Mirrored repeat can be used in some cases (see GL_MIRRORED_REPEAT)
Textures with some outstanding elements
This can be solved in the following ways (or conjunction of them):
Modifying the texture (this includes enlargement as well);
Using multitexturing;
Well, maybe mirrored repeat can be used as well in some cases.
Shifting texture coordinates randomly
Unfortunately, I can't think of any case of these 2 problems (except, maybe, white nose textures) where texture coordinates shifting is a solution.
You are looking at this problem the wrong way. All games face this issue. They hide it simply by a) varying textures a lot instead of texturing large areas with the same texture and b) through level design. Imagine this plane filled with barns, gras, trees, fences and what not - suddenly the mono-textured surface blends in with its surroundings. Also camera angle plays a huge role in this. Try changing your camera position close to the ground and the repeating texture is much less noticeable.
Your plane is just a very extreme example. You should not try to fix it at this point but rather continue to build your game. Or design your textures to repeat well without showing clear patterns. The extreme would be a flatcolored texture. But generally large outdoor terrain textures simply have very little structure, almost being like noise, plus they don't use colors with any contrast, just shades of the same color.
Your offset idea won't work. Perhaps it might work technically (it may be inefficient though). But random offsets can't cover up the patterns, instead it will create new ones because the textures won't smoothly interpolate at their edges anymore, so you could clearly see a grid of squares. That I guess would be even uglier and more noticeable.
Lastly you can increase texture size or scale (blurryness may need to be covered up as explained above). In relation to camera angle this would be the easiest, most effective fix. Or at least an improvement.
old thread, but relevant to many I think. You can do this in a shader, by randomizing the Vertex position on the XZ plane, (or better) the UV co-ordinates, based on the world space of the co-ordinates.
The texture will still tile.... but instead of being in a straight line... it will be in a random wiggly line. This is great for stuff like terrain, grass etc.... but obviously no good if you want to maintain straight lines in your textures.
A second option is diffuse-detail shader. It tiles one texture up close to camera, and another when further away (which you can make softer / more blurry
Third option... blend 2 textures together, with different UV tiling scale (non divisible. e.g not scale 2 and 4, but use 1 and 2.334556) on each, so the pattern is harder to see
Let's say i have 2 textured triangles.
I want to draw one triangle over the other one, such that the top one is basically laying on top of the second one.
Now technically they are on the same plane, but they do not share the same "space" (they do not intersect), though visually it is tough to tell at a certain distance.
Basically when these triangles are very close together (in parallel) i see texture "artifacts". I should ONLY see the triangle that is on top. But what im seeing is that the triangle in the background tends to "bleed" through.
Is there a way to alleviate this side effect, like increasing the depth precision or something? Maybe even increase the tessellation of the triangles?
* Update *
I am using vertex and index buffers. This is using OpenGL ES on iPhone.
I dont know if this picture will help or make things worse. But here it is. Two triangles very close to each other along the Z-axis (but not touching). (NOTE: the normal vector for these triangles are going straight towards you).
You can increase the depth precision up to 32 bits per pixel. However, if the 2 triangles are coplanar, that likely won't fix the problem. If they aren't coplanar (it's really hard to tell from your description what you're talking about), then increasing the depth precision might help. If you're using FBOs for your drawing, simply create the depth texture with 32-bits per component by using GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT32 for the internal format. There are several examples here. If you're not using FBOs, please describe how you create your context (also what OS you're on - Windows, OS X, Linux?).
You could try changing the Depth Buffer function to something more appropriate...
glDepthFunc(GL_ALWAYS) - Essentially disables depth testing
glDepthFunc(GL_GEQUAL) - Overwrites when greater OR equal
If they are too close (assuming they are parallel, not on the same plane), you will get precision errors (like banding artifacts=. Try adding some small offset to the top polygon using glPolygonOffsset: http://www.opengl.org/sdk/docs/man/xhtml/glPolygonOffset.xml Check this simple tutorial: http://www.felixgers.de/teaching/jogl/polygonOffset.html
EDIT: Also try increasing precision as #user1118321 says.
What you are describing is called Z-Fighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting).
Sadly depth buffers only have limited precision, so if the difference in depth of two polygons is smaller than the precision of the depth buffer, you can't predict which polygon will pass the depth test and be drawn.
As others have said, you can increase the precision of the depth buffer so that polygons have to be closer to each other before the z-fighting artifacts occur, or you can disable the depth test so you are ensured that polygons rendered wont be blocked by anything previously drawn.
Given a naive take on 3D graphics rendering it seems that stereo 3D rendering should be essentially transparent to the developer and be entirely a feature of the graphics hardware and drivers. Wherever an OpenGL window is displaying a scene, it takes the geometry, lighting, camera and texture etc. information to render a 2D image of the scene.
Adding stereo 3D to the scene seems to essentially imply using two laterally offset cameras where there was originally one, and all other scene variables stay the same. The only additional information then would be how far apart to make the cameras and how far out to to make their central rays converge. Given this it would seem trivial to take a GL command sequence and interleave the appropriate commands at driver level to drive a 3D rendering.
It seems though applications need to be specially written to make use of special 3D hardware architectures making it cumbersome and prohibitive to implement. Would we expect this to be the future of stereo 3D implementations or am I glossing over too many important details?
In my specific case we are using a .net OpenGL viewport control. I originally hoped that simply having stereo enabled hardware and drivers would be enough to enable stereo 3D.
Your assumptions are wrong. OpenGL does not "take geometry, lighting camera and texture information to render a 2D image". OpenGL takes commands to manipulate its state machine and commands to execute draw calls.
As Nobody mentions in his comment, the core profile does not even care about transformations at all. The only thing it really provides you with now is ways to provide arbitrary data to a vertex shader, and an arbitrary 3D cube to do rendering to. Wether that corresponds or not to the actual view, GL does not care, nor should it.
Mind you, some people have noticed that a driver can try to guess what's the view and what's not, and this is what the nvidia driver tries to do when doing automatic stereo rendering. This requires some specific guess-work, which amounts to actual analysis of game rendering to tweak the algorithms so that the driver guesses right. So it's typically a per-title, in-driver change. And some developers have noticed that the driver can guess wrong, and when that happens, it starts to get confusing. See some first-hand account of those questions.
I really recommend you read that presentation, because it makes some further points as to where the camera should be pointing towards (should the 2 view directions be parallel and such).
Also, It turns out that is essentially costs twice as much rendering for everything that is view dependent. Some developers (including, for example, the Crytek guys, see Part 2), figured out that to a great extent, you can do a single render, and fudge the picture with additional data to generate the left and right eye pictures.
The amount of saved work here is worth a lot by itself, for the developer to do this themselves.
Stereo 3D rendering is unfortunately more complex than just adding a lateral camera offset.
You can create stereo 3D from an original 'mono' rendered frame and the depth buffer. Given the range of (real world) depths in the scene, the depth buffer for each value tells you how far away the corresponding pixel would be. Given a desired eye separation value, you can slide each pixel left or right depending on distance. But...
Do you want parallel axis stereo (offset asymmetrical frustums) or 'toe in' stereo where the two cameras eventually converge? If the latter, you will want to tweak the camera angles scene by scene to avoid 'reversing' bits of geometry beyond the convergence point.
For objects very close to the viewer, the left and right eyes see quite different images of the same object, even down to the left eye seeing one side of the object and the right eye the other side - but the mono view will have averaged these out to just the front. If you want an accurate stereo 3D image, it really does have to be rendered from different eye viewpoints. Does this matter? FPS shooter game, probably not. Human surgery training simulator, you bet it does.
Similar problem if the viewer tilts their head to one side, so one eye is higher than the other. Again, probably not important for a game, really important for the surgeon.
Oh, and do you have anti-aliasing or transparency in the scene? Now you've got a pixel which really represents two pixel values at different depths. Move an anti-aliased pixel sideways and it probably looks worse because the 'underneath' color has changed. Move a mostly-transparent pixel sideways and the rear pixel will be moving too far.
And what do you do with gunsight crosses and similar HUD elements? If they were drawn with depth buffer disabled, the depth buffer values might make them several hundred metres away.
Given all these potential problems, OpenGL sensibly does not try to say how stereo 3D rendering should be done. In my experience modifying an OpenGL program to render in stereo is much less effort than writing it in the first place.
Shameless self promotion: this might help
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Hugh.Fisher/3dteach/stereo3d-devel/index.html
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 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. :)