I am attempting to add features to a ray tracer in C++. Namely, I am trying to add texture mapping to the spheres. For simplicity, I am using an array to store the texture data. I obtained the texture data by using a hex editor and copying the correct byte values into an array in my code. This was just for my testing purposes. When the values of this array correspond to an image that is simply red, it appears to work close to what is expected except there is no shading.
first image http://dl.dropbox.com/u/367232/Texture.jpg
The bottom right of the image shows what a correct sphere should look like. This sphere's colour using one set colour, not a texture map.
Another problem is that when the texture map is of something other than just one colour pixels, it turns white. My test image is a picture of water, and when it maps, it shows only one ring of bluish pixels surrounding the white colour.
bmp http://dl.dropbox.com/u/367232/vPoolWater.bmp
When this is done, it simply appears as this:
second image http://dl.dropbox.com/u/367232/texture2.jpg
Here are a few code snippets:
Color getColor(const Object *object,const Ray *ray, float *t)
{
if (object->materialType == TEXTDIF || object->materialType == TEXTMATTE) {
float distance = *t;
Point pnt = ray->origin + ray->direction * distance;
Point oc = object->center;
Vector ve = Point(oc.x,oc.y,oc.z+1) - oc;
Normalize(&ve);
Vector vn = Point(oc.x,oc.y+1,oc.z) - oc;
Normalize(&vn);
Vector vp = pnt - oc;
Normalize(&vp);
double phi = acos(-vn.dot(vp));
float v = phi / M_PI;
float u;
float num1 = (float)acos(vp.dot(ve));
float num = (num1 /(float) sin(phi));
float theta = num /(float) (2 * M_PI);
if (theta < 0 || theta == NAN) {theta = 0;}
if (vn.cross(ve).dot(vp) > 0) {
u = theta;
}
else {
u = 1 - theta;
}
int x = (u * IMAGE_WIDTH) -1;
int y = (v * IMAGE_WIDTH) -1;
int p = (y * IMAGE_WIDTH + x)*3;
return Color(TEXT_DATA[p+2],TEXT_DATA[p+1],TEXT_DATA[p]);
}
else {
return object->color;
}
};
I call the colour code here in Trace:
if (object->materialType == MATTE)
return getColor(object, ray, &t);
Ray shadowRay;
int isInShadow = 0;
shadowRay.origin.x = pHit.x + nHit.x * bias;
shadowRay.origin.y = pHit.y + nHit.y * bias;
shadowRay.origin.z = pHit.z + nHit.z * bias;
shadowRay.direction = light->object->center - pHit;
float len = shadowRay.direction.length();
Normalize(&shadowRay.direction);
float LdotN = shadowRay.direction.dot(nHit);
if (LdotN < 0)
return 0;
Color lightColor = light->object->color;
for (int k = 0; k < numObjects; k++) {
if (Intersect(objects[k], &shadowRay, &t) && !objects[k]->isLight) {
if (objects[k]->materialType == GLASS)
lightColor *= getColor(objects[k], &shadowRay, &t); // attenuate light color by glass color
else
isInShadow = 1;
break;
}
}
lightColor *= 1.f/(len*len);
return (isInShadow) ? 0 : getColor(object, &shadowRay, &t) * lightColor * LdotN;
}
I left out the rest of the code as to not bog down the post, but it can be seen here. Any help is greatly appreciated. The only portion not included in the code, is where I define the texture data, which as I said, is simply taken straight from a bitmap file of the above image.
Thanks.
It could be that the texture is just washed out because the light is so bright and so close. Notice how in the solid red case, there doesn't seem to be any gradation around the sphere. The red looks like it's saturated.
Your u,v mapping looks right, but there could be a mistake there. I'd add some assert statements to make sure u and v and really between 0 and 1 and that the p index into your TEXT_DATA array is also within range.
If you're debugging your textures, you should use a constant material whose color is determined only by the texture and not the lights. That way you can make sure you are correctly mapping your texture to your primitive and filtering it properly before doing any lighting on it. Then you know that part isn't the problem.
Related
I have been struggling with this problem for over a month, so I really need your help.
To further elaborate on the question :
The question is whether a vector called 'direction' that starts at a vertex called 'start' passes through the 'taget'.
You need to confirm the direction and distance.
I decided that using the dot product was impossible because I went through enough debugging.
The result is good when calculated directly, but why is the result different when executed in the shader?
The same thickness should be printed depending on the distance, but why does the thin line appear when the distance is far?
Do you have any good ideas even if it's not the way I use the rotation matrix?
These are three questions.
First of all, my situation is
drawing fSQ.
I want to check whether the direction of start passes through the target.
Compute in the pixel shader.
1 is one pixel
The screen size is 1920*1080
bool intersect(float2 target, float2 direction, float2 start) {
bool intersecting = false;
static const float thresholdX = 0.5 / SCREENWIDTH;
static const float thresholdY = 0.5 / SCREENHEIGHT;
if (direction.x == 0 && direction.y == 0);
else {
float2 startToTarget = target - start;
float changedTargetPositionX = startToTarget.x * direction.x + startToTarget.y * direction.y;
float changedTargetPositionY = startToTarget.x * (-direction.y) + startToTarget.y * direction.x;
float rangeOfX = (direction.x * direction.x) + (direction.y * direction.y);
if (changedTargetPositionX <= rangeOfX + thresholdX && changedTargetPositionX >= -thresholdX &&
changedTargetPositionY <= thresholdY && changedTargetPositionY >= -thresholdY) {
intersecting = true;
}
}
return intersecting;
We use a rotation matrix to rotate a vector and then check the difference between the two vectors, which works in most cases, but fails for very small pixels.
For example
start = (15,0) direction= (10,0) taget = (10,0)
In this case, the intersect function should return false, but it returns true.
But if the pixel difference is bigger then it works fine.
and
#define MAX = 5;
float2 points[MAX*MAX];
for (float fi = 1; fi < MAX; fi++)
for (float fj = 1; fj < MAX; fj++)
points[(int)(fi * MAX + fj)] = float2(fi / MAX , fj / MAX);
for(uint ni=0; ni < MAX*MAX;ni++)
for(uint nj=3; nj < MAX*MAX; nj++)
if (intersect(uv, points[nj]- points[ni], points[ni])) {
color = float4(1, 0, 0, 1);
return color;
}
return float4(0, 0, 0, 1);
When debugging like this, the line becomes thinner depending on the distance.
All the lines should have the same thickness, but I don't know why.
This is the result of running the debugging code:
We look forward to your reply.
thank you
This is the relevant code for refraction. I'm getting weird results when I change the index of refraction. Ideally, the sphere is supposed to show the distorted purple sphere and background due to refraction but instead it appears to look really like there's a red sphere inside the transparent one.
if(depth < MaxRecursion) {
if(shape[pos]->transparent() == 1) {
vec normal = N;
// etam = index or refrac of medium, etao = index of outside;
float eta, etao = 1.0, etam = 1.1
float cosi = dot(N, unit_vector(r.dir());
if(cosi < 0.0) {
cosi = -cosi;
}
else {
normal = -normal;
swap(etao, etam);
}
eta = etao/etam;
float c2 = 1.0 - eta*eta*(1.0 - cosi * cosi);
if(c2 > 0.0) {
vec dir = unit_vector(eta*unit_vector(r.dir()) - (eta*cosi -
sqrtf(c2))*normal);
ray refraction(r.p_at_par(t_near) + normal*1e-4, dir);
total += color(refraction, shape, lighting, depth + 1);
// color function is the current function
}
else { // total internal reflection
ray reflect = reflection(unit_vector(r.dir()), normal, r.p_at_par(t_near));
total += color(reflect, shape, lighting, depth + 1);
}
}
}
and for higher indexes of refraction, I get a completely white sphere (etam = 1.9)
I know than the error lies in this part of the code alone, because everything else works fine without the refraction code (i.e reflection, shadow, etc.)
I am attempting to have a GLSL fragment shader distort incoming fragments based on their texture coordinates to poorly simulate a CRT.
After the code failed to work, I ported it to C++ to modify the RGB values of a texture. The code worked as expected.
This brings me to believe that something is wrong with my GLSL code, even though it is mirrored in C++ and works perfectly.
Is there something that I don't know about GLSL math that could be causing this?
C++ code
const unsigned int RED = 0xFFFF0000;
const unsigned int BLUE = 0xFF0000FF;
const float X_MAX = 429.0f/448.0f;
const float Y_MAX = 320.0f/336.0f;
const float X_CORNER = 410.0f/448.0f;
const float Y_CORNER = 306.0f/336.0f;
const float X_COEF = (X_MAX-X_CORNER) / (Y_CORNER * Y_CORNER);
const float Y_COEF = (Y_MAX-Y_CORNER) / (X_CORNER * X_CORNER);
float FUNCX(float y)
{
return X_MAX-X_COEF*y*y;
}
float FUNCY(float x)
{
return Y_MAX-Y_COEF*x*x;
}
unsigned int get(glm::vec2 intex)
{
intex *= 2.0; // Transform the texture rectangle from 0..1
intex.x -= 1.0; // to
intex.y -= 1.0; // -1 .. 1
glm::vec2 d = glm::vec2(0.0,0.0);
d.x = FUNCX(intex.y); // get the curve amount for X values based on Y input
d.y = FUNCY(intex.x); // get the curve amount for Y values based on X input
if (abs(intex.x/d.x) > 1.0) // if the X value is outside of the curve
return RED; // draw RED for debugging
if (abs(intex.y/d.y) > 1.0) // if the Y value is outside of the curve
return BLUE; // draw BLUE for debugging
glm::vec2 outtex = glm::vec2(0.0f,0.0f);
outtex.x = 1.0 + intex.x/d.x; // Now the -1 .. 1 values get shifted back
outtex.y = 1.0 + intex.y/d.y; // to
outtex /= 2.0; // 0 .. 1
return texture.get(512*outtex.x,512*outtex.y);
}
GLSL fragment shader
const vec4 RED = vec4(1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0);
const vec4 BLUE = vec4(0.0,0.0,1.0,1.0);
const float X_MAX = 429.0/448.0;
const float Y_MAX = 320.0/336.0;
const float X_CORNER = 410.0/448.0;
const float Y_CORNER = 306.0/336.0;
const float X_COEF = (X_MAX-X_CORNER) / (Y_CORNER * Y_CORNER);
const float Y_COEF = (Y_MAX-Y_CORNER) / (X_CORNER * X_CORNER);
float FUNCX(float y)
{
return X_MAX-X_COEF*y*y;
}
float FUNCY(float x)
{
return Y_MAX-Y_COEF*x*x;
}
vec4 get(vec2 intex)
{
intex *= 2.0; // Transform the texture rectangle from 0..1
intex.x -= 1.0; // to
intex.y -= 1.0; // -1 .. 1
vec2 d = vec2(0.0,0.0);
d.x = FUNCX(intex.y); // get the curve amount for X values based on Y input
d.y = FUNCY(intex.x); // get the curve amount for Y values based on X input
if (abs(intex.x/d.x) > 1.0) // if the X value is outside of the curve
return RED; // draw RED for debugging
if (abs(intex.y/d.y) > 1.0) // if the Y value is outside of the curve
return BLUE; // draw BLUE for debugging
vec2 outtex = vec2(0.0,0.0);
outtex.x = 1.0 + intex.x/d.x; // Now the -1 .. 1 values get shifted back
outtex.y = 1.0 + intex.y/d.y; // to
outtex /= 2.0; // 0 .. 1
return texture2D(texture,outtex);
}
Note: The Super Mario World image is for testing purposes only.
Note 2: The 512 values in the C++ code are the size of the texture used.
Edit: There was a typo in the GLSL code where a y value was divided by an x instead of y. This has been fixed and the new output is the same because the denominator values are so close.
The code is not the same. In the C++ code:
if (abs(intex.y/d.y) > 1.0) // if the Y value is outside of the curve
return BLUE; // draw BLUE for debugging
In the GLSL code:
if (abs(intex.y/d.x) > 1.0) // if the Y value is outside of the curve
return BLUE; // draw BLUE for debugging
The C++ version divides by d.y, the GLSL version by d.x.
The formula used only supported UV values from 0 to 1. If values outside of that range were used, the formula broke down.
I've been working on my raytracer again. I added reflection and multithreading support. Currently I am working on adding refractions, but its only half working.
As you can see, there is a center sphere(without specular highlight), a reflecting sphere(to the right) and a refracting sphere(left). I'm pretty happy about reflections, it does look very good. For refractions its kinda working...the light is refracted and all shadows of the spheres are visible in the sphere(refraction index 1.4), but there is an outer black ring.
EDIT: Apparently the black ring gets bigger, and therefore the sphere smaller, when I increase the refraction index of the sphere. On the contrary, when decreasing the index of refraction, the Sphere gets larger and the black ring smaller...until, with index of refraction set to one, the ring totally disappears.
IOR = 1.9
IOR = 1.1
IOR = 1.00001
And interestingly enough at IOR = 1 the sphere loses its transparency and becomes white.
I think I covered total internal reflection and it is not the issue here.
Now the code:
I'm using the operator | for dot product, so (vec|vec) is a dot product and the operator ~ to invert vectors. The objects, both ligths and spheres are stored in Object **objects;.
Raytrace function
Colour raytrace(const Ray &r, const int &depth)
{
//first find the nearest intersection of a ray with an object
Colour finalColour = skyBlue *(r.getDirection()|Vector(0,0,-1)) * SKY_FACTOR;
double t, t_min = INFINITY;
int index_nearObj = -1;
for(int i = 0; i < objSize; i++)
{
if(!dynamic_cast<Light *>(objects[i]))//skip light src
{
t = objects[i]->findParam(r);
if(t > 0 && t < t_min)
{
t_min = t;
index_nearObj = i;
}
}
}
//no intersection
if(index_nearObj < 0)
return finalColour;
Vector intersect = r.getOrigin() + r.getDirection()*t_min;
Vector normal = objects[index_nearObj]->NormalAtIntersect(intersect);
Colour objectColor = objects[index_nearObj]->getColor();
Ray rRefl, rRefr; //reflected and refracted Ray
Colour refl = finalColour, refr = finalColour; //reflected and refracted colours
double reflectance = 0, transmittance = 0;
if(objects[index_nearObj]->isReflective() && depth < MAX_TRACE_DEPTH)
{
//handle reflection
rRefl = objects[index_nearObj]->calcReflectingRay(r, intersect, normal);
refl = raytrace(rRefl, depth + 1);
reflectance = 1;
}
if(objects[index_nearObj]->isRefractive() && depth < MAX_TRACE_DEPTH)
{
//handle transmission
rRefr = objects[index_nearObj]->calcRefractingRay(r, intersect, normal, reflectance, transmittance);
refr = raytrace(rRefr, depth + 1);
}
Ray rShadow; //shadow ray
bool shadowed;
double t_light = -1;
Colour localColour;
Vector tmpv;
//get material properties
double ka = 0.2; //ambient coefficient
double kd; //diffuse coefficient
double ks; //specular coefficient
Colour ambient = ka * objectColor; //ambient component
Colour diffuse, specular;
double brightness;
localColour = ambient;
//look if the object is in shadow or light
//do this by casting a ray from the obj and
// check if there is an intersection with another obj
for(int i = 0; i < objSize; i++)
{
if(dynamic_cast<Light *>(objects[i])) //if object is a light
{
//for each light
shadowed = false;
//create Ray to light
tmpv = objects[i]->getPosition() - intersect;
rShadow = Ray(intersect + (!tmpv) * BIAS, tmpv);
t_light = objects[i]->findParam(rShadow);
if(t_light < 0) //no imtersect, which is quite impossible
continue;
//then we check if that Ray intersects one object that is not a light
for(int j = 0; j < objSize; j++)
{
if(!dynamic_cast<Light *>(objects[j]) && j != index_nearObj)//if obj is not a light
{
t = objects[j]->findParam(rShadow);
//if it is smaller we know the light is behind the object
//--> shadowed by this light
if (t >= 0 && t < t_light)
{
// Set the flag and stop the cycle
shadowed = true;
break;
}
}
}
if(!shadowed)
{
rRefl = objects[index_nearObj]->calcReflectingRay(rShadow, intersect, normal);
//reflected ray from ligh src, for ks
kd = maximum(0.0, (normal|rShadow.getDirection()));
if(objects[index_nearObj]->getShiny() <= 0)
ks = 0;
else
ks = pow(maximum(0.0, (r.getDirection()|rRefl.getDirection())), objects[index_nearObj]->getShiny());
diffuse = kd * objectColor;// * objects[i]->getColour();
specular = ks * objects[i]->getColor();
brightness = 1 /(1 + t_light * DISTANCE_DEPENDENCY_LIGHT);
localColour += brightness * (diffuse + specular);
}
}
}
finalColour = localColour + (transmittance * refr + reflectance * refl);
return finalColour;
}
Now the function that calculates the refracted Ray, I used several different sites for resource, and each had similar algorithms. This is the best I could do so far. It may just be a tiny detail I'm not seeing...
Ray Sphere::calcRefractingRay(const Ray &r, const Vector &intersection,Vector &normal, double & refl, double &trans)const
{
double n1, n2, n;
double cosI = (r.getDirection()|normal);
if(cosI > 0.0)
{
n1 = 1.0;
n2 = getRefrIndex();
normal = ~normal;//invert
}
else
{
n1 = getRefrIndex();
n2 = 1.0;
cosI = -cosI;
}
n = n1/n2;
double sinT2 = n*n * (1.0 - cosI * cosI);
double cosT = sqrt(1.0 - sinT2);
//fresnel equations
double rn = (n1 * cosI - n2 * cosT)/(n1 * cosI + n2 * cosT);
double rt = (n2 * cosI - n1 * cosT)/(n2 * cosI + n2 * cosT);
rn *= rn;
rt *= rt;
refl = (rn + rt)*0.5;
trans = 1.0 - refl;
if(n == 1.0)
return r;
if(cosT*cosT < 0.0)//tot inner refl
{
refl = 1;
trans = 0;
return calcReflectingRay(r, intersection, normal);
}
Vector dir = n * r.getDirection() + (n * cosI - cosT)*normal;
return Ray(intersection + dir * BIAS, dir);
}
EDIT: I also changed the refraction index around.From
if(cosI > 0.0)
{
n1 = 1.0;
n2 = getRefrIndex();
normal = ~normal;
}
else
{
n1 = getRefrIndex();
n2 = 1.0;
cosI = -cosI;
}
to
if(cosI > 0.0)
{
n1 = getRefrIndex();
n2 = 1.0;
normal = ~normal;
}
else
{
n1 = 1.0;
n2 = getRefrIndex();
cosI = -cosI;
}
Then I get this, and almost the same(still upside down) with an index of refraction at 1!
And the reflection calculation:
Ray Sphere::calcReflectingRay(const Ray &r, const Vector &intersection, const Vector &normal)const
{
Vector rdir = r.getDirection();
Vector dir = rdir - 2 * (rdir|normal) * normal;
return Ray(intersection + dir*BIAS, dir);
//the Ray constructor automatically normalizes directions
}
So my question is: How do I fix the outer black circle? Which version is correct?
Help is greatly appreciated :)
This is compiled on Linux using g++ 4.8.2.
Warning: the following is a guess, not a certainty. I'd have to look at the code in more detail to be sure what's happening and why.
That said, it looks to me like your original code is basically simulating a concave lens instead of convex.
A convex lens is basically a magnifying lens, bringing light rays from a relatively small area into focus on a plane:
This also shows why the corrected code shows an upside-down image. The rays of light coming from the top on one side get projected to the bottom on the other (and vice versa).
Getting back to the concave lens though: a concave lens is a reducing lens that shows a wide angle of picture from in front of the lens:
If you look at the bottom right corner here, it shows what I suspect is the problem: especially with a high index of refraction, the rays of light trying to come into the lens intersect the edge of the lens itself. For all the angles wider than that, you're typically going to see a black ring, because the front edge of the lens is acting as a shade to prevent light from entering.
Increasing the index of refraction increases the width of that black ring, because the light is bent more, so a larger portion at the edges is intersecting the outer edge of the lens.
In case you care about how they avoid this with things like wide-angle camera lenses, the usual route is to use a meniscus lens, at least for the front element:
This isn't a panacea, but does at least prevent incoming light rays from intersecting the outer edge of the front lens element. Depending on exactly how wide an angle the lens needs to cover, it'll often be quite a bit less radical of a meniscus than this (and in some cases it'll be a plano-concave) but you get the general idea.
Final warning: of course, all of these are hand-drawn, and intended only to give general idea, not (for example) reflect the design of any particular lens, an element with any particular index of refraction, etc.
I stumbled across this exact issue as well when working on a ray tracer. #lightxbulb's comment about normalizing the ray direction vector fixed this problem for me.
Firstly, keep your code that computes the refraction indices prior to your edit. In other words, you should be seeing those black rings in your renderings.
Then, in your calcRefractingRay function where you compute cosI, use the dot product of normalize(r.getDirection()) and normal. Currently you're taking the dot product of r.getDirection() and normal.
Secondly, when you compute the refracted ray direction dir, use normalize(r.getDirection()) instead of r.getDirection(). Again, you're currently using
r.getDirection() in your calculation.
Also, there is an issue with the way you're checking for total internal reflection. You should check that the term you're taking the square root of (1.0 - sinT2) is non-negative before actually computing the square root.
Hope that helps!
I am trying to perform a realtime painting to the object texture. Using Irrlicht for now, but that does not really matter.
So far, i've got the right UV coordinates using this algorithm:
find out which object's triangle user selected (raycasting, nothing
really difficult)
find out the UV (baricentric) coordinates of intersection point on
that triangle
find out the UV (texture) coordinates of each triangle vertex
find out the UV (texture) coordinates of intersection point
calculate the texture image coordinates for intersection point
But somehow, when i am drawing in the point i got in the 5th step on texture image, i get totally wrong results. So, when drawing a rectangle in cursor point, the X (or Z) coordinate of its is inverted:
Here's the code i am using to fetch texture coordinates:
core::vector2df getPointUV(core::triangle3df tri, core::vector3df p)
{
core::vector3df
v0 = tri.pointC - tri.pointA,
v1 = tri.pointB - tri.pointA,
v2 = p - tri.pointA;
float dot00 = v0.dotProduct(v0),
dot01 = v0.dotProduct(v1),
dot02 = v0.dotProduct(v2),
dot11 = v1.dotProduct(v1),
dot12 = v1.dotProduct(v2);
float invDenom = 1.f / ((dot00 * dot11) - (dot01 * dot01)),
u = (dot11 * dot02 - dot01 * dot12) * invDenom,
v = (dot00 * dot12 - dot01 * dot02) * invDenom;
scene::IMesh* m = Mesh->getMesh(((scene::IAnimatedMeshSceneNode*)Model)->getFrameNr());
core::array<video::S3DVertex> VA, VB, VC;
video::SMaterial Material;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < m->getMeshBufferCount(); i++)
{
scene::IMeshBuffer* mb = m->getMeshBuffer(i);
video::S3DVertex* vertices = (video::S3DVertex*) mb->getVertices();
for (unsigned long long v = 0; v < mb->getVertexCount(); v++)
{
if (vertices[v].Pos == tri.pointA)
VA.push_back(vertices[v]); else
if (vertices[v].Pos == tri.pointB)
VB.push_back(vertices[v]); else
if (vertices[v].Pos == tri.pointC)
VC.push_back(vertices[v]);
if (vertices[v].Pos == tri.pointA || vertices[v].Pos == tri.pointB || vertices[v].Pos == tri.pointC)
Material = mb->getMaterial();
if (VA.size() > 0 && VB.size() > 0 && VC.size() > 0)
break;
}
if (VA.size() > 0 && VB.size() > 0 && VC.size() > 0)
break;
}
core::vector2df
A = VA[0].TCoords,
B = VB[0].TCoords,
C = VC[0].TCoords;
core::vector2df P(A + (u * (C - A)) + (v * (B - A)));
core::dimension2du Size = Material.getTexture(0)->getSize();
CursorOnModel = core::vector2di(Size.Width * P.X, Size.Height * P.Y);
int X = Size.Width * P.X, Y = Size.Height * P.Y;
// DRAWING SOME RECTANGLE
Material.getTexture(0)->lock(true);
Device->getVideoDriver()->setRenderTarget(Material.getTexture(0), true, true, 0);
Device->getVideoDriver()->draw2DRectangle(video::SColor(255, 0, 100, 75), core::rect<s32>((X - 10), (Y - 10),
(X + 10), (Y + 10)));
Device->getVideoDriver()->setRenderTarget(0, true, true, 0);
Material.getTexture(0)->unlock();
return core::vector2df(X, Y);
}
I just wanna make my object paintable in realtime. My current problems are: wrong texture coordinate calculation and non-unique vertex UV coordinates (so, drawing something on the one side of the dwarfe's axe would draw the same on the other side of that axe).
How should i do this?
I was able to use your codebase and get it to work for me.
Re your second problem "non-unique vertex UV coordinates":
Well you are absolutely right, you need unique vertexUVs to get this working, which means that you have to unwrap you models and don't make use of shared uv-space for e.g. mirrored elements and stuff. (e.g. left/right boot - if they use the same uv-space, you'll paint automatically on both, where you want the one to be red and the other to be green). You can check out "uvlayout" (tool) or the uv-unwrap modifier ind 3ds max.
Re the first and more important problem: "**wrong texture coordinate calculation":
the calculation of your baycentric coordinates is correct, but as i suppose your input-data is wrong. I assume you get the triangle and the collisionPoint by using irrlicht's CollisionManager and TriangleSelector. The problem is, that the positions of the triangle's vertices (which you get as returnvalue from the collisionTest) is in WorldCoordiates. But you'll need them in ModelCoordinates for the calculation, so here's what you need to do:
pseudocode:
add the node which contains the mesh of the hit triangle as parameter to getPointUV()
get the inverse absoluteTransformation-Matrix by calling node->getAbsoluteTransformation() [inverse]
transform the vertices of the triangle by this inverse Matrix and use those values for the rest of the method.
Below you'll find my optimized method wich does it for a very simple mesh (one mesh, only one meshbuffer).
Code:
irr::core::vector2df getPointUV(irr::core::triangle3df tri, irr::core::vector3df p, irr::scene::IMeshSceneNode* pMeshNode, irr::video::IVideoDriver* pDriver)
{
irr::core::matrix4 inverseTransform(
pMeshNode->getAbsoluteTransformation(),
irr::core::matrix4::EM4CONST_INVERSE);
inverseTransform.transformVect(tri.pointA);
inverseTransform.transformVect(tri.pointB);
inverseTransform.transformVect(tri.pointC);
irr::core::vector3df
v0 = tri.pointC - tri.pointA,
v1 = tri.pointB - tri.pointA,
v2 = p - tri.pointA;
float dot00 = v0.dotProduct(v0),
dot01 = v0.dotProduct(v1),
dot02 = v0.dotProduct(v2),
dot11 = v1.dotProduct(v1),
dot12 = v1.dotProduct(v2);
float invDenom = 1.f / ((dot00 * dot11) - (dot01 * dot01)),
u = (dot11 * dot02 - dot01 * dot12) * invDenom,
v = (dot00 * dot12 - dot01 * dot02) * invDenom;
irr::video::S3DVertex A, B, C;
irr::video::S3DVertex* vertices = static_cast<irr::video::S3DVertex*>(
pMeshNode->getMesh()->getMeshBuffer(0)->getVertices());
for(unsigned int i=0; i < pMeshNode->getMesh()->getMeshBuffer(0)->getVertexCount(); ++i)
{
if( vertices[i].Pos == tri.pointA)
{
A = vertices[i];
}
else if( vertices[i].Pos == tri.pointB)
{
B = vertices[i];
}
else if( vertices[i].Pos == tri.pointC)
{
C = vertices[i];
}
}
irr::core::vector2df t2 = B.TCoords - A.TCoords;
irr::core::vector2df t1 = C.TCoords - A.TCoords;
irr::core::vector2df uvCoords = A.TCoords + t1*u + t2*v;
return uvCoords;
}