I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I want to make sure that I'm right or not.
suppose we have an 8x8 pixel screen and we want to represent a 2x2 square, a pixel can be black - 1 and white - 0. I would imagine this as an 8x8 matrix
[[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]]
using this matrix, we paint over the pixels and update them (for example) every second. we also have the coordinates of the pixels representing the square : (4,4) (4,5) (5,4) (5,5) and if we want to move the square we add 1 to x part of coordinate.
is it true or not?
Graphics Rendering is a complex mesh of art, mathematics, and hardware, assuming you're asking about how the screen actually works instead of a pet problem on simulating displays.
The buffer you described in the question is the interface which software uses to tell the hardware (video card) what to draw on the screen, and how it is actually done is in the realm of hardware. Hence, the logic for manipulating graphics objects (things you want drawn) is separate from the rendering process itself. Your program tells the buffer which pixels you want to update, and that's all; this can be done as often as you like, regardless of whether the hardware actually manages to flush its buffers onto the screen.
The software would be responsible for sorting out what exactly to draw on the screen; this is usually handled on multiple logical levels. Higher levels would construct a virtual worldspace for your objects and determine their interactions and attributes (position, velocity, collision, etc.), as well as a camera to determine the FOV the screen should display (if your world is 3D). Lower levels would then figure out the actual pixel values to write to the buffer, based on the camera FOV (3D), or just plain pixel coordinates after applying the desired transformations (rotation, shear, resize, etc.) to the associated image (2D).
It should be noted that virtual worldspace coordinates do not necessarily reflect pixel coordinates, even in 2D worlds. I'm not an expert on this subject, frankly, but I suspect it'll be easier if you first determine how far you want the object to move in virtual space first, and then apply the necessary transformations to show the results in a viewing window with customizable dimensions.
In short, you probably don't want to 'add 1 to x' when you want to move something on screen; you move it in a high abstraction layer, and then draw the results. This will save you a lot of trouble, especially if you have a complex scene with all kinds of stuff and a background.
Assuming you want to move a group of pixels to the right, then yes, all you need to do is identify the group of pixels and add 1 to their X coordinate. Of course you need to fill in the vacated spots with zeroes, otherwise that would have been a copy operation.
Keep in mind, my answer is a bit naive in the sense that when you reach the rightmost boundary, you have to wrap.
Related
My project combines a projection screen with a head tracking device, where the screen should act as a window through which I could see my virtual "world". Basically, this.
Initially, I thought this would be easy: Map the camera position to the head tracking, have it point towards my window in the virtual world, adjust camera parameters to fit its frustum to the window, and voilà!
Except it doesn't work because I'm viewing the window (both real and virtual) at an angle, so the regular perspective camera doesn't do the trick: If I understand correctly, that camera 'input' is always rectangular, but I need to 'fit' it in a trapezoïd instead.
I think I should be able to achieve that by making my own projection matrix, but I'm a bit lost on how to do that: I have played a bit with basic matrix transforms (translate, scale, rotate), but I have zero experience with more complex stuff (ie perspective).
My best guess for now is trying to deduce the projection matrix from known transformed points (the corners of my window => the corners of the screen) but I feel like it's going to be quite expensive to do that each frame, and that doesn't account for the perspective inside the "window".
thanks for any help!
I am working on a CAD type system using threejs. I have thin objects next to other objects (think thin 2mm metal sheeting fixed to posts on a building measured in metres). When I am zoomed in it all looks fine. The objects do not intersect at all. As I zoom out the objects get smaller and I end up with cases where the post object 'glimmers' (sort of shows through) the metal sheet object as I rotate it around.
I understand it's the small numbers I am working with that is causing this effect. However, is there a way to set a priority such that one object (the metal sheeting) is more important than another object (post) so it doesn't get that sort of effect?
To answer the question from the title, it is possible to prioritize drawing orders with.
myMesh.renderOrder = 5
myOtherMesh.renderOrder = 7
It is then possible to apply different depth effects, turn off the test etc.
Another way is to group objects with, layers. Set the appropriate layer mask on the camera and then render (multiple times).
myMesh.layers.set(5)
camera.layers.set(1)
renderer.render(scene,camera)
camera.layers.set(5)
renderer.render(scene,camera)
This is called z-fighting, where two fragments are so close in the given depth space that their z-values are within the margin of error that their true depths might get inverted.
The easiest way to resolve this is to reduce the scale of your depth buffer. This is controlled by the near and far properties on your camera. You'll need to play with the values to determine what works best for your senario. If you can minimize the distance between the planes, you'll have better luck avoiding z-fighting.
For example, if (as a loose estimate) the bounding sphere of your entire model has a diameter of 100, then the distance between near and far need only be 100. However, their values are set as the distance into camera space. So as you zoom out, and your camera moves further away, you should adjust the values to maintain the minimum distance between them. If your camera is at z = 100, then set near = 50 and far = 150. When you pull your camera back to z = 250, then update near = 200 and far = 300.
Another option is to use the WebGLRenderer.logarithmicDepthBuffer option. (example)
Edit: There is one other cause: the faces of the shapes are actually co-planar. If two triangles are occupying the same space, then you're all but guaranteeing z-fighting.
The simple solution is to move one of the components such that the faces are no longer co-planar. You could also potentially apply a polygonOffset to the sheet metal material, but your use-case doesn't sound like that is appropriate.
OpenGL Question:I have something to ask about clip space transformation. I am reading an online tutorial and it says that everything you draw outside the clip space will be clipped. When it come to this, does the elements outside the clip space affects the performance or not? Because it will not be drawn and thus it doesn't affect.
Assuming that it will affect performance and in case of 2d game like super mario, I am thinking about not to draw the elements outside the clip space to achieve better performance. Please clarify. Thanks.
OpenGL has only a certain amount of knowledge about your scene and will clip very late in the pipeline. It can't apply a broad phase test. Assuming you can, you should.
Supposing you had a model with 30,000 triangles, OpenGL would transform each and every one of those 30,000 triangles before considering clipping. If you know something as simple as the bounding sphere for the model it's possible you could see that the whole thing is completely outside of the frustum in a single test and save almost 30,000 extra bits of effort.
In a 2d game like Mario what this usually means is using the scroll position to index into the map and to generate geometry only for potentially visible tiles and sprites that are within the visible area.
For the map that will generally just men figuring out the (x, y) of one corner and then generating geometry for the known width and height of the screen so it means discarding the vast majority of the geometry with zero processing.
For the sprites, this is generally why in those sort of games you often see enemies reset to their starting position if you walk a little way from them and then walk back: they're added to the active list based on a map location trigger and removed when you walk far enough away. While not active, no mutable storage is afforded to them.
When several objects overlap on the same plane, they start to flicker. How do I tell the renderer to put one of the objects in front?
I tried to use .renderDepth, but it only works partly -
see example here: http://liveweave.com/ahTdFQ
Both boxes have the same size and it works as intended. I can change which of the boxes is visible by setting .renderDepth. But if one of the boxes is a bit smaller (say 40,50,50) the contacting layers are flickering and the render depth doesn't work anymore.
How to fix that issue?
When .renderDepth() doesn't work, you have to set the depths yourself.
Moving whole meshes around is indeed not really efficient.
What you are looking for are offsets bound to materials:
material.polygonOffset = true;
material.polygonOffsetFactor = -0.1;
should solve your issue. See update here: http://liveweave.com/syC0L4
Use negative factors to display and positive factors to hide.
Try for starters to reduce the far range on your camera. Try with 1000. Generally speaking, you shouldn't be having overlapping faces in your 3d scene, unless they are treated in a VERY specific way (look up the term 'decal textures'/'decals'). So basically, you have to create depth offsets, and perhaps even pre sort the objects when doing this, which all requires pretty low-level tinkering.
If the far range reduction helps, then you're experiencing a lack of precision (depending on the device). Also look up 'z fighting'
UPDATE
Don't overlap planes.
How do I tell the renderer to put one of the objects in front?
You put one object in front of the other :)
For example if you have a camera at 0,0,0 looking at an object at 0,0,10, if you want another object to be behind the first object put it at 0,0,11 it should work.
UPDATE2
What is z-buffering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-buffering
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb976071.aspx
Take note of "floating point in range of 0.0 - 1.0".
What is z-fighting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting
...have similar values in the z-buffer. It is particularly prevalent with
coplanar polygons, where two faces occupy essentially the same space,
with neither in front. Affected pixels are rendered with fragments
from one polygon or the other arbitrarily, in a manner determined by
the precision of the z-buffer.
"The renderer cannot reposition anything."
I think that this is completely untrue. The renderer can reposition everything, and probably does if it's not shadertoy, or some video filter or something. Every time you move your camera the renderer repositions everything (the camera is actually the only thing that DOES NOT MOVE).
It seems that you are missing some crucial concepts here, i'd start with this:
http://www.opengl-tutorial.org/beginners-tutorials/tutorial-3-matrices/
About the depth offset mentioned:
How this would work, say you want to draw a decal on a surface. You can 'draw' another mesh on this surface - by say, projecting a quad onto it. You want to draw a bullet hole over a concrete wall and end up with two coplanar surfaces - the wall, the bullet hole. You can figure out the depth buffer precision, find the smallest value, and then move the bullet hole mesh by that value towards the camera. The object does not get scaled (you're doing this in NDC which you can visualize as a cube and moving planes back and forth in the smallest possible increment), but does translate in depth direction, ending up in front of the other.
I don't see any flicker. The cube movement in 3D seems to be super-smooth. Can you try in a different computer (may be faster one)? I used Chrome on Macbook Pro.
There is a great article about multiple light sources in GLSL
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GLSL_Programming/GLUT/Multiple_Lights
But light0 and light1 parameters described in shader code, what if must draw flare gun shots, e.g every flare has it own position, color and must illuminate surroundings. How we manage other objects shader to deal with unknown (well there is a limit to max flares on the screen) position, colors of flares? For example there will be 8 max flares on screen, what i must to pass 8*2 uniforms, even if they not exist at this time?
Or imagine you making level editor, user can place lamps, how other objects will "know" about new light source and render then new lamp has been added?
I think there must be clever solution, but i can't find one.
Lighting equations usually rely on additive colour. So the output is the colour of light one plus the colour of light two plus the colour of light three, etc.
One of the in-framebuffer blending modes offered by OpenGL is additive blending. So the colour output of anything new that you draw will be added to whatever is already in the buffer.
The most naive solution is therefore to write your shader to do exactly one light. If you have multiple lights, draw the scene that many times, each time with a different nominated line. It's an example of multipass rendering.
Better solutions involve writing shaders to do two, four, eight or whatever lights at once, doing, say, 15 lights as an 8-light draw then a 4-light draw then a 2-light draw then a 1-light draw, and including only geometry within reach of each light when you do that pass. Which tends to mean finding intelligent ways to group lights by locality.
EDIT: with a little more thought, I should add that there's another option in deferred shading, though it's not completely useful on most GL ES devices at the moment due to the limited options for output buffers.
Suppose theoretically you could render your geometry exactly once and store whatever you wanted per pixel. So you wouldn't just output a colour, you'd output, say, a position in 3d space, a normal, a diffuse colour, a specular colour and a specular exponent. Those would then all be in a per-pixel buffer.
You could then render each light by (i) working out the maximum possible space it can occupy when projected onto the screen (so, a 2d rectangle that relates directly to pixels); and (ii) rendering the light as a single quad of that size, for each pixel reading the relevant values from the buffer you just set up and outputting an appropriately lit colour.
Then you'd do all the actual geometry in your scene only exactly once, and each additional light would cost at most a single, full-screen quad.
In practice you can't really do that because the output buffers you tend to be able to use in ES provide too little storage. But what you can usually do is render to a 32bit colour buffer with an attached depth buffer. So you can just store depth in the depth buffer and work out world (x, y, z) from that plus the [uniform] position of the camera in the light shader. You could store 8-bit versions of normal x and y in the colour buffer so as to spend 16 bits and work out z in the colour buffer because you know that the normal is always of unit length. Then, to pick a concrete example at random, maybe you could store a 16-bit version of the diffuse colour in the remaining space, possibly in YCrCb with extra storage for Y.
The main disadvantage is that hardware antialiasing then doesn't due to much the same sort of concerns as transparency and depth buffers. But if you get to the point where you save dramatically on lighting it might still make sense to do manual antialiasing by rendering a large version of the scene and then scaling it down in a final pass.