The only thing i could find is:
DirectGeometry is an internal class that you generally should not be messing with
and that it used to be called "DynamicGeometry" a while ago?
I mess with a lot of internals of three.js, like make my own shaders, extend the library, make custom buffer geometries etc.
What i understand is THREE.Geometry gives me a lot of structure that's easy to navigate which comes at a performance cost. Also needs to be converted to buferr geometry at some point. On the opposite end of the spectrum, i have a THREE.BufferGeometry that i can assemble out of THREE.BufferAttributes which in turn use typed arrays.
Where does direct geometry fit?
DirectGeometry is a class internal to the three.js library and is used as temporary storage to convert an object of type Geometry to an object of type BufferGeometry.
I see no reason why you would be using DirectGeometry at the application layer.
three.js r.79
Related
We use three.js as the foundation of our WebGL engine and up until now, we only used traditional alpha blending with back-to-front sorting (which we customized a little to match the desired behavior) in our projects.
Goal: Now our goal is to incorporate the order-independent transparency algorithm proposed by McGuire and Bavoil in this paper trying to rid ourselves of the
usual problems with sorting and conventional alpha blending in complex scenes. I got it working without much hassle in a small, three.js based prototype.
Problem: The problem we have in the WebGL engine is that we're dealing with object hierarchies consisting of both opaque and translucent objects which are currently added to the same scene so three.js will handle transform updates. This, however, is a problem, since for the above algorithm to work, we need to render to one or more FBOs (the latter due to the lack of support for MRTs in three.js r79) to calculate accumulation and revealage and finally blend the result with the front buffer to which opaque objects have been previously rendered and in fact, this is what I do in my working prototype.
I am aware that three.js already does separate passes for both types of objects but I'm not aware of any way to influence to which render target three.js renders (render(.., .., rt,..) is not applicable) and how to modify other pipeline state I need. If a mixed hierarchy is added to a single scene, I have no idea how to tell three.js where my fragments are supposed to end up and in addition, I need to reuse the depth buffer from the opaque pass during the transparent pass with depth testing enabled but depth writes disabled.
Solution A: Now, the first obvious answer would be to simply setup two scenes and render opaque and translucent objects separately, choosing the render targets as we please and finally do our compositing as needed.
This would be fine except we would have to do or at least trigger all transformation calculations manually to achieve correct hierarchical behavior. So far, doing this seems to be the most feasible.
Solution B: We could render the scene twice and set all opaque and transparent materials visible flag to false depending on which pass were currently doing.
This is a variant of Solution A, but with a single scene instead of two scenes. This would spare us the manual transformation calculations but we would have to alter materials for all objects per pass - not my favorite, but definitely worth thinking about.
Solution C: Patch three.js as to allow for more control of the rendering process.
The most simple approach here would be to tell the renderer which objects to render when render() is called or to introduce something like renderOpaque() and renderTransparent().
Another way would be to somehow define the concept of a render pass and then render based on the information for that pass (e.g. which objects, which render target, how the pipeline is configured and so on).
Is someone aware of other, readily accessible approaches? Am I missing something or am I thinking way too complicated here?
I think this requires a bit of background information:
I have been modding Minecraft for a while now, but I alway wanted to make my own game, so I started digging into the freshly released LWJGL3 to actually get things done. Yes, I know it's a bit ow level and I should use an engine and stuff...indeed, I already tried some engines and they never quite match what I want to do, so I decided I want to tackle the problem at its root.
So far, I kind of understand how to render meshes, move the "camera", etc. and I'm willing to take the learning curve.
But the thing is, at some point all the tutorials start to explain how to load models and create skeletal animations and so on...but I think I do not really want to go that way. A lot of things in working with Minecraft code was awful, but I liked how I could create models and animations from Java code. Sure, it did not look super realistic, but since I'm not great with Blender either, I doubt having "classic" models and animations would help. Anyway, in that code, I could rotate a box around to make a creature look at a player, I could use a sinus function to move legs and arms (or wings, in my case) and that was working, since Minecraft used immediate mode and Java could directly tell the graphics card where to draw each vertex.
So, actual question(s): Is there any good way to make dynamic animations in modern (3.3+) OpenGL? My models would basically be a hierarchy of shapes (boxes or whatever) and I want to be able to rotate them on the fly. But I'm not sure how to organize that. Would I store all the translation/rotation-matrices for each sub-shape? Would that put a hard limit on the amount of sub-shapes a model could have? Did anyone try something like that?
Edit: For clarification, what I did looked something like this:
Create a model: https://github.com/TheOnlySilverClaw/Birdmod/blob/master/src/main/java/silverclaw/birds/client/model/ModelOstrich.java
The model is created as a bunch of boxes in the constructor, the render and setRotationAngles methods set scale and rotations.
You should follow one opengl tutorial in order to understand the basics.
Let me suggest "Learning Modern 3D Graphics Programming", and especially this chapter, where you move one robot arm with multiple joints.
I did a port in java using jogl here, but you can easily port it over lwjgl.
What you are looking for is exactly skeletal animation, the only difference being the fact you do not want to load animations for your bones but want to compute / generate transforms on the fly.
You basically have a hierarchy of bones, and geometry attached to it. It looks like you want to manipulate this geometry "rigidly", so before sending your meshes / transforms to the GPU (the classic way), you want to start by computing the new transforms in model or world space, then send those freshly computed matrices to draw your geometries on the gpu the standard way.
As Sorin said, to compute each transform you simply have to iterate over your hierarchy and accumulate transforms given the transform of the parent bone and your local transform w.r.t the parent.
Yes and no.
You can have your hierarchy of shapes and store a relative transform for each.
For example the "player" whould have a translation to 100,100, 10 (where the player is), and then the "head" subcomponent would have an additional translation of 0,0,5 (just a bit higher on the z axis).
You can store these as matrices (they can encode translation, roation and scaling) and use glPushMatrix and glPop matrix to add and remove a matrix to a stack maintained by openGL.
The draw() function(or whatever you call it) should look something like :
glPushMatrix();
glMultMatrix(my_transform); // You can also just have glTranslate, glRotate or anything else.
// Draw my mesh
for (child : children) { child.draw(); }
glPopMatrix();
This gives you a hierarchical setup so that objects move with their parent. Alternatively you can have a stack in the main memory and do the multiplications yourself (use a library). I think the openGL stack may have a limit (implementation dependent), but if you handle it yourself the only limit is the amount of ram you can use. Once all the matrices are multiplied rendering is done in the same amount of time, that is it doesn't matter for performance how deep a mesh is in the hierarchy.
For actual animations you need to compute the intermediate transformations. For example for a crouch animation you probably want to have a few frames in between so that the camera doesn't just jump to the low position. You can do this with a time based linear interpolation between the start and end positions, but this only covers simple animations and you still have to implement it yourself.
Anything more complicated (i.e. modify the mesh based on the bone links) you would need to implement yourself.
I'm reading up on Direct2D before I migrate my GDI code to it, and I'm trying to figure out how paths work. I understand most of the work involved with geometries and geometry sinks, but there's one thing I don't understand: the D2D1_FIGURE_BEGIN type and its parameter to BeginFigure().
First, why is this value even needed? Why does a geometry need to know if it's filled or hollow ahead of time? I don't know nay other drawing API which cares about whether path objects are filled or not ahead of time; you just define the endpoints of the shapes and then call fill() or stroke() to draw your path, so how are geometries any different?
And if this parameter is necessary, how does choosing one value over the other affect the shapes I draw in?
Finally, if I understand the usage of this enumeration correctly, you're supposed to only use filled paths with FillGeometry() and hollow paths with DrawGeometry(). However, the hourglass example here and cited by several method documentation pages (like the BeginFigure() one) creates a filled figure and draws it with both DrawGeometry() and FillGeometry()! Is this undefined behavior? Does it have anything to do with the blue border around the gradient in the example picture, which I don't see anywhere in the code?
Thanks.
EDIT Okay I think I understand what's going on with the gradient's weird outline: the gradient is also transitioning alpha values, and the fill is overlapping the stroke because the stroke is centered on the line, and the fill is drawn after the stroke. That still doesn't explain why I can fill and stroke with a filled geometry, or what the difference between hollow and filled geometries are...
Also I just realized that hollow geometries are documented as not having bounds. Does this mean that hollow geometries are purely an optimization for stroke-only geometries and otherwise behave identically to a filled geometry?
If you want to better understand Direct2D's geometry system, I recommend studying the WPF geometry system. WPF, XPS, Direct2D, Silverlight, and the newer "XAML" frameworks all use the same building blocks (the same "language", if you will). I found it easier to understand the declarative object-oriented API in WPF, and after that it was a breeze to work with the imperative API in Direct2D. You can think of WPF's mutable geometry system as an implementation of the "builder" pattern from Java, where the build() method is behind the scenes (hidden from you) and spits out an immutable Direct2D geometry when it comes time to render things on-screen (WPF uses something called "MIL", which IIRC/AFAICT, Direct2D was forked from. They really are the same thing!) It is also straightforward to write code that converts between the two representations, e.g. walking a WPF PathGeometry and streaming it into a Direct2D geometry sink, and you can also use ID2D1PathGeometry::Stream and a custom ID2D1GeometrySink implementation to reconstitute a WPF PathGeometry.
(BTW this is not theoretical :) It's exactly what I do in Paint.NET 4.0+: I use a WPF-esque declarative, mutable object model that spits out immutable Direct2D geometries at render time. It works really well!)
Okay, anyway, to get directly to your specific question: BeginFigure() and D2D1_FIGURE_BEGIN map directly to the PathFigure.IsFilled property in WPF. In order to get an intuitive understanding of what effect this has, you can use something like KaXAML to play around with some geometries from WPF or Silverlight samples and see what the results look like. And the documentation is definitely better for WPF and Silverlight than for Direct2D.
Another key concept is that DrawGeometry is basically a helper method. You can accomplish the same thing by first widening your geometry with ID2D1Geometry::Widen and then using FillGeometry ("widening" seems like a misnomer to me, btw: in Photoshop or Illustrator you'd probably use a verb like "stroke"). That's not to say that either one always performs better/worse ... be sure to benchmark. I've seen it go both ways. The reason you can think of this as a helper method is dependent on the fact that the lowest level of the rasterization engine can only do one thing: fill a triangle. All other drawing "primitives" must be converted to triangle lists or strips (this is also why ID2D1Mesh is so fast: it bypasses all sorts of processing code!). Filling a geometry requires tessellation of its interior to a list of triangle strips which can then be filled by Direct3D. "Drawing" a geometry requires applying a stroke (width and/or style): even a simple 1-pixel wide straight line must be first converted to 2 filled triangles.
Oh, also, if you want to compute the "real" bounds of a geometry with hollow figures, use ID2D1Geometry::GetWidenedBounds with a strokeWidth of zero. This is a discrepancy between Direct2D and WPF that puzzles me. Geometry.Bounds (in WPF) is equivalent to ID2D1Geometry::GetWidenedBounds(0.0f).
I'm making a WebGL game and eventually came up with a pretty convenient concept of object templates, when the game objects of the same kind (say, characters of the same race) are using the same template (which means: buffers, attributes and shader program), and are instanced from that template by specifying a set of uniforms (which are, in fact, the most common difference between the same-kind objects: model matrix, textures, bones positions, etc). For making independent objects with their own deep-copy of buffers, I just deep-copy and re-initialize the original template and start instantiating new objects from it.
But after that I started having doubts. Say, if I start using morphing on objects, by explicit editing of the vertices, this approach will require me to make a separate template for every object of such kind (otherwise, they would start morphing in exactly the same phase). Which is probably fine for this very case, 'cause I'll most likely need to recalculate normals and even texture coordinates, which means – most of the buffers.
But what if I'm missing some very common case of using attributes, say, blood decals, which will require me to update only a small piece of the buffer? In that case, it would be much more reasonable to have two buffers for each object: a common one that is shared by them all and the one for blood decals, which is unique for every single of them. And, as blood is usually spilled on everything, this sounds pretty reasonable, so that we would save a lot of space by storing vertices, normals and such without their unnecessary duplication.
I haven't tried implementing decals yet, so honestly not even sure if implementing them using vertex painting (textured or not) is the right choice. But I'm also pretty sure there are some commonly used attributes aside from vertices, normals and texture coordinates.
Here are some that I managed to come up with myself:
decals (probably better to be modelled as separate objects?)
bullet holes and such (same as decals maybe?)
Any thoughts?
UPD: as all this might sound confusing, I want to clarify: I do understand that using as few buffers as possible is a good thing, this is exactly why I'm trying to use this templates concept. My question is: what are the possible cases when using a single buffer and a single element buffer (with both of them shared between similar objects) for a template is going to stab me in the back?
Keeping a giant chunk of data that won't change on the card is incredibly useful for saving bandwidth. Additionally, you probably won't be directly changing the vertices positions once they are on the card. Instead you will probably morph them with passed in uniforms in the Vertex shader through Skeletal animation. Read about it here: Skeletal Animation
Do keep in mind though, that in Key frame animation with meshes, you would keep a bunch of buffers on the card each in a different key frame pose of the animation. However, you would then load whatever two key frames you want to interpolate over in as attributes and then blend between them (You can have more than two). Keyframe Animation
Additionally, with the introduction of Transformation Feedback, (No you don't get to use it in WebGL, it became core in OpenGL 3.0, WebGL is based on OpenGL ES 2.0, which is based on OpenGL 2.0) you can start keeping calculated data GPU side. In other words, you can do a giant particle system simulation in the vertex or geometry shader and then store the calculated data into another buffer, then use that buffer in the next frame without having to have a round trip from the GPU to CPU Read about them here: Transform Feedback and here: Transform Feedback how to
In general, you don't want to touch buffers once they are on the card, especially every frame. Instead load several and use pointers to that data in shaders as attributes.
I've been trying to figure out how you'd take a mesh generated in a program like 3ds max and bring that into your game with animations, textures, etc.
I've looked at FBX and Collada, but from what I've read, they're used as an intermediate step between the modelling software and some final format that may be custom to the game. What I'm looking for is a book or tutorial that would go over in a general way what you would store in your custom file, how you would store animation data, etc.
Right now I don't really have a general plan of attack and all of the guides I've seen stick to rendering a few triangles.
It doesn't have to be implementation specific to OpenGL, although that is what I'll be using.
Yes Collada is an interchange format.
What that means is it is very much generic. And if I am right that is exactly what you are looking for!
You can use a library such as Assimp to load collada into a generic scene graph, and then have your game/renderer use it directly, or preprocess and then consume it.