Normal marching cubes finds 12 edges per cube, but you can do 3 edges per cube, save the edges inside an array, and then go through the cubes again, referencing the edges from the cubes adjacent rather than calculating them.
The process to reference adjacent cubes isn't clearly discussed on the Internet so anyone using marching cubes would be welcome to help find the details of the solution. do you know an implementation already?
here is a picture showing the 3 edges in yellow that you need for each cube, instead of 12.
EDIT- I just found this solution, although it's just a part of it:
Imagine 3 edges coming from the corner of the cube with lowerest coordinates. Then all other edges just belong to other cubes. If our cube has coordinates (x,y,z), the neiboring cubes have coordinates (x+1,y,z), (x,y+1,z), (x,y,z+1), (x+1,y+1,z), (x+1,y,z+1), (x,y+1,z+1). You can imagine the edge as a vector. Then the corner of the cube have edges (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1). The cube with coordinates (x+1,y,z) have edges (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) that belong to our cube. The cube (x+1,y+1,z) has only one edge (0,0,1) that belongs to our cube. So if you store 4 elements for the cube you can access them like that:
edge1 = cube[x][y][z][0];
edge2 = cube[x][y][z][1];
edge3 = cube[x][y][z][2];
edge4 = cube[x+1][y][z][1];
edge5 = cube[x+1][y][z][2];
edge6 = cube[x][y+1][z][0];
edge7 = cube[x][y+1][z][2];
edge8 = cube[x][y][z+1][0];
edge9 = cube[x][y][z+1][1];
edge10 = cube[x+1][y+1][z][2];
edge11 = cube[x+1][y][z+1][1];
edge12 = cube[x][y+1][z+1][0];
Now which points edge7 connect? The answer is (x,y+1,z) and (x,y+1,z)+(0,0,1)=(x,y+1,z+1).
Now which cubes edge7 connect? It is more harder. We see that coordinate z is changes along the edge this means that neibour cube has the same z coordinate. Now all others coordinates change. Where we have +1, the cube has large coordinate. Where we have +0, the cube has smaller coordinates. So the edge connects cubes (x,y,z) and (x-1,y+1,z). Other 2 cubes that has the same edge are (x,y+1,z) and (x-1,y,z).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=
EDIT2-
So I am doing this, and it isn't so simple. I have a loop which simultaneously calculate 8 points, 12 edges, the interpolation of edges, the bit values and a vertex the values for the edges, all in one loop.
so I am doing a new loop previous to it to calculate as much as possible and place it in arrays to used in the complicated loop.
I can recycle the interpolated values of the intersection points along edges, in an array, although I will have to recalculate all the points again in the complicated loop, because the values of the points I used to decide bit numbers that reference values in the vertex table. That confuses me! I thought that once I have the edge intersection values, I could use those directly to get the triangle tables, without having to calculate the points all over again!
in fact no.
anyway, here is another bit of information with someone that already did it, if only it was readable!
http://www.new-npac.org/projects/sv2all/sv2/vtk/patented/vtkImageMarchingCubes.cxx
scroll to this line: Cubes are responsible for edges on their min faces.
A simple way to reduce edge calculations in the way you are suggesting is to compute cubes one axis aligned plane at a time.
If you kept all of the cubes, with their edges, in memory, it would be easy to compute each edge only once and to find adjacent edges by indexing. However, you usually don't want to keep all the cubes in memory at once because of the space requirements.
A solution to this is to compute one plane of cubes at a time. i.e. an axis aligned cross-section, starting from one side and progressing to the opposite side. You then only need to keep at most two full planes of cubes in memory at a time. As you move through each plane you can reference shared edges in the previous plane and previously computed cubes in the current plane. As you move to the next plane you can deallocate the plane you will no longer need.
Edit: This article discusses doing just what I suggest:
http://alphanew.net/index.php?section=articles&site=marchoptim&lang=eng
Funny, because when I implemented my own MCs I came up with similar solution.
When you start working with MCs you treat them as a distinct cubes but if you want to go for high performance you'll need to create entire mesh as a whole, and creating vertex indices etc. is not so easy here. It gets even more interesting when you want to add smooth per-vertex normals :).
To solve this I created a simple index cache mechanism to store vertex indices for each edge.
Then, for each computed edge I have cube position x,y,z and edge index and I do as follows:
For each axis:
if the edge is on '+' side of axis:
replace edge index with its '-' side sibling
increment cube position along axis
This simple operation gives me the correct cube position, and edge index of 0,1,2. Then I compute a total cache index from x,y,z,edgeIndex values with simple bit rotations.
When I have cache index I check if it's bigger than -1. If it is then there was an already computed vertex at this edge and I can reuse it. If it's -1 I need to create a new vertex and store its index in the cache. This way you'll compute each vertex only once, and you can even add a normal value shared between every triangle containing your vertex.
Yes, I think I do it similar to kolenda. I have a struct with 5 ints: (cube)index and 4 vertexindices (A, B, C, D).
for the most inner loop (x), I have just lastXCache and nextXCache. On the 4 edges pointing in the -x direction, i ask if lastXCache.A != -1 and if so, assign the previously calculated value, etc.
In the +x direction I store calculated vertices in nextXCache. when cube is done: lastXCache = nextXCache;
For y and z direction it needs to be a list (unity term for mutable array), next y is next row (so sizex) and next z is the next plane (so sizex * sizey)
only diadvantage is that this way it has to run cube after cube, so serially. But you can calculate different chunks in parallel.
Another way I thought of that could be more parallel would need 2 passes: 1. calculate 3 edges every cube, when 1 is done -> 2. draw the triangles.
Don't really know what is better, but the way it actually works seems to be fast enough. even better with unity jobs. Create one IJob for 1 chunk/mesh.
Related
here is a problem that will turn your brain inside out, I'm trying to deal with it for a quite some time already.
Suppose you have sphere located in the origin of a 3d space. The sphere is segmented into a grid of equidistant points. The procedure that forms grid isn't that important but what seems simple to me is to use regular 3d computer graphics sphere generation procedure (The algorithm that forms the sphere described in the picture below)
Now, after I have such sphere (i.e. icosahedron of some degree) I need a computationally trivial procedure that will be capable to snap (an angle) of a random unit vector to it's closest icosahedron edge points. Also it is acceptable if the vector will be snapped to a center point of triangle that the vector is intersecting.
I would like to emphasise that it is important that the procedure should be computationally trivial. This means that procedures that actually create a sphere in memory and then involve a search among every triangle in sphere is not a good idea because such search will require access to global heap and ram which is slow because I need to perform this procedure millions of times on a low end mobile hardware.
The procedure should yield it's result through a set of mathematical equations based only on two values, the vector and degree of icosahedron (i.e. sphere)
Any thoughts? Thank you in advance!
============
Edit
One afterthought that just came to my mind, it seems that within diagram below step 3 (i.e. Project each new vertex to the unit sphere) is not important at all, because after bisection, projection of every vertex to a sphere would preserve all angular characteristics of a bisected shape that we are trying to snap to. So the task simplifies to identifying a bisected sub triangle coordinates that are penetrated by vector.
Make a table with 20 entries of top-level icosahedron faces coordinates - for example, build them from wiki coordinate set)
The vertices of an icosahedron centered at the origin with an
edge-length of 2 and a circumscribed sphere radius of 2 sin (2π/5) are
described by circular permutations of:
V[] = (0, ±1, ±ϕ)
where ϕ = (1 + √5)/2
is the golden ratio (also written τ).
and calculate corresponding central vectors C[] (sum of three vectors for vertices of every face).
Find the closest central vector using maximum of dot product (DP) of your vector P and all C[]. Perhaps, it is possible to reduce number of checks accounting for P components (for example if dot product of P and some V[i] is negative, there is no sense to consider faces being neighbors of V[i]). Don't sure that this elimination takes less time than direct full comparison of DP's with centers.
When big triangle face is determined, project P onto the plane of that face and get coordinates of P' in u-v (decompose AP' by AB and AC, where A,B,C are face vertices).
Multiply u,v by 2^N (degree of subdivision).
u' = u * 2^N
v' = v * 2^N
iu = Floor(u')
iv = Floor(v')
fu = Frac(u')
fv = Frac(v')
Integer part of u' is "row" of small triangle, integer part of v' is "column". Fractional parts are trilinear coordinates inside small triangle face, so we can choose the smallest value of fu, fv, 1-fu-fv to get the closest vertice. Calculate this closest vertex and normalize vector if needed.
It's not equidistant, you can see if you study this version:
It's a problem of geodesic dome frequency and some people have spent time researching all known methods to do that geometry: http://geo-dome.co.uk/article.asp?uname=domefreq, see that guy is a self labelled geodesizer :)
One page told me that the progression goes like this: 2 + 10·4N (12,42,162...)
You can simplify it down to a simple flat fractal triangle, where every triangle devides into 4 smaller triangles, and every time the subdivision is rotated 12 times around a sphere.
Logically, it is only one triangle rotated 12 times, and if you solve the code on that side, then you have the lowest computation version of the geodesic spheres.
If you don't want to keep the 12 sides as a series of arrays, and you want a lower memory version, then you can read about midpoint subdivision code, there's a lot of versions of midpoint subdivision.
I may have completely missed something. just that there isn't a true equidistant geodesic dome, because a triangle doesn't map to a sphere, only for icos.
I am trying to find or search for a method that quickly finds all cubes of size L that would be contained by a viewing frustum. Maybe even using cuda.
I have made a DDA traversal for raycasting, which is like a 1D case to me and simple, as I only move along the line at a known distance.
My instinct was to create a bounding box of the frustum, and subdivide this space into a spatial grid of size L cubes. Then test each cell's center of the grid for being inside the frustum. Considering the frustum is a pyramid, it seems that about half the cells would be occupied by a bounding box and I feel that this method is just doing too much work. It will surely work though, I am hoping for a less naive or faster geometric approach.
Perhaps ray cast the left wall first, then right wall second and then line cast in between these? So in a nutshell, looking for the R3 version of something like a DDA traversal.
The fastest way to detect if a vertex resides within a frustum is dot product. The frustum consists of 4 planes, that is top, bottom, left, right, and two z values, front and back clipping. For each vertex check two things: First, is it outside front or back panel? And if not, is it inside the four planes?
To check if a vertex is outside front or back panel you check vertex.Z against your frustrum:
isInsideZ = vertex.Z >= frustrum.Zmin && vertex.Z <= frustrum.Zmax;
To check if it's inside the four frustrum 'walls' you need to compute the cross vectors for them, oriented towards the frustrum's center. Then check the dot product of each cross vector and the position vector to your vertex relative to the respective plane. You obtain this position vector by subtracting some arbitrary point on the plane from the vertex you test. Should the dot product be positive, the vertex is above that plane.
isAbove[i] = Vector3D.Dot(cross[i], vertex - planeloc[i]) > 0;
Where planeloc[i] is any point located on the respective plane i.
The vertex is inside the frustrum if all conditions are met:
isInside = isInsideZ && isAbove[0] && isAbove[1] && isAbove[2] && isAbove[3];
This sounds a bit awkward to handle, but a lot of things can be done outside the grinding loop, such as computing the cross products, i.e. frustrum plane normals, or the plane location vectors. For example, if a plane is spanned by (1,0,0), (1,1,0) then (1,0,0) already represents a point located on that plane.
I have a plane mesh with divisions and I want to specify the coordinates that each of the corners should be positioned. Moving and updating the mesh vertices achieves what I'm trying to do, so long as the plane only has no internal segments. If internal segments are added then I have more vertices than I can manually place, so these need to automatically fall in line with the transformation of the outer edges.
My initial thought here was that I could create a geometry with only four vertices, reposition them, and then increase the number of segments on my plane, apparently, this isn't something that Three.js supports, so I'm looking for a workaround.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I don't think that this sort of transformation is expressible as a single matrix that you could then just apply to your plane mesh. I think you really do need to calculate the coordinates of each vertex of the subdivided plane manually.
There are different ways to do this calculation. Bilinear interpolation is this case seems to do the job. Here's how you do it. If you have four points A, B, C, D, then for each internal points, its position can be found as the weighted average of (the weighted average of A and B, and the weighted average of C and D). The weights for the averages come from the index of the subdivision vertex in one direction (say, X) for the inner averages and in the other direction (say, Y) for the outer average. Your indexes run from 0 up to the number of subdivisions in that direction (inclusive), the weight should be from 0 to 1, so the weight = index / number of subdivisions.
I have a 3D polygon mesh and a corresponding 2D polygon mesh (actually from a UV map) which I'm using to map the geometry onto a 2D plane. Given a point on the plane, how can I efficiently find the polygon on which it's resting in order to map that 2D point back into 3D?
The best approach I can think of is to store the polygons in a 2D interval tree, and use that to get candidate polygons. Is there a simpler approach?
To clarify, this is not for a shader. I'm actually taking a 2D physical simulation and rendering it wrapped around a 3D mesh. For drawing each object, I need to figure out what point in 3D corresponds to its real 2D position.*
One approach I've seen for triangle meshes goes as follows: choose a triangle, and imagine that each of the sides defines a half space. For a given edge, the half space boundary is the line containing the edge, and the half space does not contain the triangle. Choose an edge whose corresponding half space contains your target point. Then select the triangle on the other side of edge, and repeat the process.
Using this method, you will eventually end up at the triangle that contains your target point.
This method is arguable simpler than implementing a 2D interval tree, although the search is less efficient (if n is the number of triangles, it is O(√n) rather than O(log n). Also, it should work for a polygon mesh, as long as the polygons are convex.
So, if I were trying to just get the thing implemented, I'd probably start with a global search of all triangles - compute the barycentric coordinates of that 2d point for each triangle, find the triangle where the barycentric coordinates are all positive, and then use those to map to 3d (multiply the stu position by the 3d points). I'd do this first, and only if it's not fast enough would I try something more complex.
If it's possible to iterate by triangle rather than by 2d points, then the barycentric method would probably be fast enough. But it seems like you've got a bunch of 2d points at arbitrary positions that need to be mapped, and the points change position from frame to frame?
If you've got this kind of situation, you could probably get a big speedup by implementing a local update per frame. Each 2d point would remember which triangle it was within. Set that as the current triangle. Test if the new position is within the current triangle. If not, then you want to walk the mesh to the adjacent triangle which is closest to the target 2d point. Each edge-adjacent triangle is composed of the two common points on the edge, plus another point. Find which edge-adjacent triangle's other point is closest to the target, and set that as current. Then iterate - seems like it should find it pretty quickly? You could also cache a max size for each triangle, so if the point has moved a lot you can just iterate to the next neighbor without doing the barycentric computation (the max size would need to be the distance such that if you are farther than that distance from any triangle point there is no chance you're inside the triangle. This is the length of the largest edge).
But as you mention in your comments, you can run into problems with meshes that have concavities, holes, or separate connected components, where you may fall into a local minimum. There are a couple of ways to deal with this. I think the simplest is to keep a list of all visited triangles (maybe as a flag on the triangle, vector< bool > or set< triangle index >) and refuse to revisit a triangle. If you find that you've visited all the neighbors of your current triangle, then fall back to a global search. Such failures are likely to be uncommon, so it shouldn't hurt your performance too much.
This kind of per-frame updating can be very fast, and might even be a decent approach for computing the initial containing triangles - just choose a random triangle and walk from there (changes from checking all n triangles to only those that are in roughly a straight line to the target). If it's not fast enough, what you could do is keep a k-d tree (or something similar) of the 2d mesh points as well as a single touching triangle index for each mesh point. To seed the iteration, find the closest point to the target 2d point in the k-d tree, set the adjacent triangle to be current, and then iterate.
given a 3D grid, a 3d point as sphere center and a radius, i'd like to quickly calculate all cells contained or intersected by the sphere.
Currently i take the the (gridaligned) boundingbox of the sphere and calculate the two cells for the min anx max point of this boundingbox. then, for each cell between those two cells, i do a box-sphere intersection test.
would be great if there was something more efficient
thanks!
There's a version of the Bresenham algorithm for drawing circles. Consider the two dimensional place at z=0 (assume the sphere is at 0,0,0 for now), and look at only the x-y plane of grid points. Starting at x= R, y=0, follow the Bresenham algorithm up to y = y_R, x=0, except instead of drawing, you just use the result to know that all grid points with lower x coordinates are inside the circle, down to x=x_center. Put those in a list, count them or otherwise make note of. When done with two dimensional problem, repeat with varying z and using a reduced radius R(z) = sqrt(R^2-z^2) in place of R, until z=R.
If the sphere center is indeed located on a grid point, you know that every grid point inside or outside the right half of the sphere has a mirror partner on the left side, and likewise top/bottom, so you can do half the counting/listing per dimension. You can also save time running Bresenham only to the 45 degree line, because any x,y point relative to the center has a partner y,x. If the sphere can be anywhere, you will have to compute results for each octant.
No matter how efficiently you calculate an individual cell being inside or outside the sphere, your algorithm will always be O(radius^3) because you have to mark that many cells. DarenW's suggestion of the midpoint (aka Bresenham) circle algorithm could give a constant factor speedup, as could simply testing for intersection using the squared radius to avoid the sqrt() call.
If you want better than O(r^3) performance, then you may be able to use an octree instead of a flat grid. Each node of the tree could be marked as being entirely inside, entirely outside, or partially inside the sphere. For partially inside nodes, you recurse down the tree until you get to the finest-grained cells. This will still require marking O(r^2 log r) nodes [O(r^2) nodes on the boundary, O(log r) steps through the tree to get to each of them], so it might not be worth the trouble in your application.