I'm finishing up on a 3D planet with ROAM (continuous level of detail).
My goal now is to have good quality render using textures.
I'm trying to find a way I can use a tiling system (small good textures combined), but in a way I can take advantage of my CLOD mesh.
Current algorithms (from what I've found) using this tiling systems produce a huge texture and then direcly apply it. That is not what I want... the planet is very big, and I want more power than simply increasing the texture size.
Is there any known algorithm/opengl feature for this kind of stuff?
I don't know much about shaders, but Is it possible to create one that paints a objects alone... I mean, not giving the texcoords, but putting the right color for every pixel (not vertex) of the mesh?
PS: My world is built using perlin noise... so I can get the height in any world point (height map with infinite resolution)
You have used 3D Perlin noise for the terrain, why not generate the texture as well? Generally, programs like Terragen, Vistapro and the like use altitude to randomly select a range of color from the palette, modify that color based on slope, and perhaps add detail from smaller textures based on both slope and altitude. In your case, distance could also modify detail. For that matter, 2d perlin noise would work well for detail texture.
Have you modified the heightmap at all? Something like an ocean would be hard to achieve with pure 3d Perlin noise, but flattening everything below a certain altitude and applying a nice algorithmic ocean texture (properly tuned 2d Perlin noise with transparency below a certain level) would look good.
Related
I am attempting to create a reasonably interactive N-body simulation, with the novelty of being able to observe the simulation from the surface of one of the bodies. By this, I mean that I have some randomly placed 'stars' of very high masses with random velocities and 'planets' of smaller masses given initial circular velocities around these stars. I am then rendering this in real-time via OpenGL on Linux and DirectX11 on Windows.
My question is in regards to rendering the scene out, NOT the N-body simulation. I have a very efficient/accurate solver working now, and it can always be improved later without affecting the rendering.
The problem obviously arises that stars are obscenely far away from each other, thus the fragment shader is incapable of rendering distant stars as they are fractions of pixels in size. Using a logarithmic depth-buffer works fine for standing on a planet and looking at a moon and the host star, but I am really struggling on how to deal with the distant stars. I am not interested in 'faking' it, or rendering a star map centered on the player, as the whole point is to be able to view the simulation in real time. A.k.a the star your planet is orbiting is ~1e6m away and is rendered as a sphere, as it has a radius ~1e4 m. Other stars are ~1e8m away from you, so they show up as single lit pixels (sometimes) with a far Z-plane of ~1e13.
I think I have an idea/plan, but I think it involves knowledge/techniques I am not aware of yet.
Rationale:
Have world space of stars on a given frame
This gives us 'screen' space, or fragment position, of star's center of mass in fragment shader
Rather than render this as a scaled sphere, we can try to mimic what our eye's actually do: convolve this point (pixel) with an airy disc (or gaussian or whatever is most efficient, doesn't matter) so that stars are rendered instead as 'blurs' on the sky, with their 'bigness' depending on their luminosity and distance (in essence re-creating the magnitude system for free)
Theoretically this would enable me to change the 'lens' parameters of my airy disc at will in order to produce things that look reasonably accurate/artistic.
The problem: I have no idea how to achieve this blurring effect!
I have some basic understanding of shaders, and have different render passes going on currently, but this seems to involve things I have not stumbled upon, or even how to achieve this effect.
TLDR: given an input of a fragment position, how can I blur it in a fragment/pixel shader with an airy disc/gaussian/etc.?
I thought a logarithmic depth buffer would work initially, but obviously that only helps with z-fighting, not dealing with angular size of far away objects.
You are over-thinking it. For stars smaller than a pixel, just render a square with an Airy disc texture. This is not "faking" - this is just how [real-time] computer graphics works.
If the lens diameter changes, calculate a new Airy disc texture.
For stars that are a few pixels big (do they exist?) maybe you want to render a few-pixel sphere convolved with an Airy disc, then use that texture. Asking the GPU to do convolution every frame is a waste of time, unless you really need it to. If the size really is only a few pixels, you could alternatively render a few copies of the single-pixel texture, overlapping itself and 1 pixel apart. Though computing the texture would allow you to have precision smaller than a pixel, if that's something you need.
For the nearby stars, the Airy disc from each pixel sums up to make a halo, I think? Then you just render a halo, instead of doing the convolution. It isn't cheating, I swear.
If you really do want to do a convolution, you can do it directly: render everything to a texture by using a framebuffer, and then render that texture onto the screen, using a shader that reads from several adjacent texture pixels, and multiplies them by the kernel. Since this runs for every pixel multiplied by the size of the kernel, it quickly gets expensive, the more pixels you want to sample for the convolution, so you may prefer to skip some and make it approximate. If you are not doing real-time rendering then you can make it as slow as you want, of course.
When game developers do a Gaussian blur (quite common) or a box blur, they do a separate X blur and Y blur. This works because the convolution of an X blur and a Y blur is a 2D blur, but I don't know if this works for the Airy disc function. It minimizes the number of pixels sampled for the convolutions.
Two questions:
How do modern games set up their terrain vertices? Do they attach a height map image to a texture and then use it to set each vertex position, or do they just use a 3D software (like Blender) to create a file that contains these vertices and then read it to a VBO? Please correct me if my grasp is incorrect.
How important are tessellation shaders to this process? Do they just save performance or do they also change the viewer's scene?
The two most common I have seen are heightmaps, in which the RGB value is used for surface normal and the alpha value is used for heights, and procedural terrain generation using a method such as Perlin Noise, that use a random function and sample their surrounding vertices to even out the height.
Tesselation shaders are used primarily in decreasing workload by simplifying far away meshes in which you would not notice the extra detail. They do change the viewers scene, but in a way that is attempting to not be noticed.
Generally height are generated procedurally in shaders for vertices.
By procedurally in computer graphics it means by some mathematics algorithm. Perlin noise is one of the methods for this procedural generation. There are several strategies keep the height map of small size and produce different heights using procedural method this is done as height map is texture and that uses bandwidth.
Tessellation shaders are used along for adaptive tessellation. You can think of it as some kind of level of detail mechanism. Smoothness of terrain depends upon how many triangles are used to represent patch on terrain. Depending on the distance of pixel from camera developers can decide what should be tessellation level on the fly and generate more triangles for patches close to user. This is way to improve details on the terrain. Everything here is happening on the GPU so its extremely efficient.
Previous to tessellation shaders were accessibe there were algorithms like ROAR which used to do adaptive tessellation on the CPU.
Please follow http://vterrain.org/ this project. You will see all state of the terrain techniques implemented here.
Here is the reference of library I am using
The texture when pasted over a opengl wall looks low in resolution and has poor quality, how can I improve it?
code
ground->m_texture = new cTexture2D();
fileload = ground->m_texture->loadFromFile(RESOURCE_PATH("resources/images/shadow.bmp"));
ground->setUseTexture(true);
ground->m_texture->setSphericalMappingEnabled(true);//this line is for circular objects, but without it texture doesnt even show up
from an example - how it should look
How it looks in my implementation
Okay, what's happening is the following: Spherical mapping generates texture coordinates based on the vertex-to-viewport vector and the normal at the vertex to map it into a spherical reflection directions mapped into a sort-of fisheye image. Since your geometry looks like it's quite flat, the variation of texture coordinates generated by this method will be rather small, which means, that you're largely magnifying your image. If now your texture filtering mode is set to nearest filtering, this is what will happen.
Solution: don't use spherical texture mapping. If you want to emulate a reflection, use cubemaps (they behave much better for small deviations in the reflection vector) and switch to linear filtering mode.
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. :)
I am trying to write an optimized code that renders a 3D scene using OpenGL onto a sphere and then displays the unwrapped sphere on the screen ie producing a planar map of a purely reflective sphere. In math terms, I would like to produce a projection map where the x axis is the polar angle and y axis is the azimuth.
I am trying to do this by placing the camera at the center of the sphere probe and taking planar shots around so as to approximate spherical quads with planar tiles of the frustum. Then I can use this as texture to apply to a distorted planar patch.
Seems to me this is pretty tedious approach. I wonder if there is way to take this on using shaders or some GPU-smart method.
Thank you
S.
I can give you two solutions.
The first is to make a standard render-to-texture, but with a cubemap attached as the destination buffer. If your hardware is recent enough, it can be done in a single pass. This will deal with all the needed math in HW for you, but data repartition of cubemaps aren't ideal (quite a lot of distortion if the corners). In most cases, it should be enough though.
After this, you render a quad to the screen, and in a shader you map your UV coordinates to xyz vectors using staightforwad spherical mapping. The HW will compute for you which side of the cubemap to take, at which UV.
The second is more or less the same, but with a custom deformation and less HW support : dual paraboloids. Two paraboloids may not be enough, but you are free to slightly modify the equations and make 6 passes. The rendering pass is the same, but this time you're all by yourself to choose the right texture and compute the UVs.
By the time you've bothered to build the model, take the planar shots, apply non-affine transformations and stitch the whole thing together, you've probably gained no performance and considerable complexity. Just project the planar image mathematically and be done with it.
You seem to be asking for OpenGL's sphere mapping. NeHe has a tutorial on sphere mapping that might be useful.