I need additional theory on view frustum culling to better understand how to implement it. I understand that ray casting is involved in order to figure out what objects are in front, thus figuring out which objects not to render.
I am concerned about CPU usage. From what I understand, I should be casting out rays by my camera's width * height, and maybe increase the amount of rays depending how far the camera sees. Additionally, I would have to multiply that by the amount of object in the scene to verify which is closest to the ray.
Is my understanding of this concept accurate? How exactly could I do this more efficiently?
edit:
The goal is to achieve some type of voxel engine where the world can be sub-divided-up using an oct-tree. It could consist of hundreds of thousands of cubes.
I don't think view frustum culling involves ray casting usually.
Normally you'd just z-transform all your geometry and then clip any polygons whose vertices fall outside of the viewport, or whose z value is greater or less than the near/far clipping planes.
Ray casting would be a lot more expensive, as you are essentially testing each pixel in the viewport to see if there's a polygon behind it, which is potentially NUMBER_OF_PIXELS * NUMBER_OF_POLYGONS math operations, instead of just NUMBER_OF_POLYGONS.
EDIT:
Oh, I see: You're trying to create a voxel-space world like Minecraft. That's a bit different.
The trick there is to make use of the fact that you know the world is a grid to avoid doing calculations for geometry that is occluded by cubes that are closer to the camera.
I'm still not sure that ray casting is the best approach for this - I suspect you want something like an oct-tree structure that lets you discard large groups of blocks quickly, but I'll let somebody with more experience of building such things weigh in ;-)
EDIT 2:
Looks like somebody else on StackOverflow had the same problem (and they used octrees): Culling techniques for rendering lots of cubes
Related
As far as I know, all the techniques mentioned in the title are rendering algorithms that seem quite similar. All ray based techniques seem to revolve about casting rays through each pixel of an image which are supposed to represent rays of real light. This allows to render very realistic images.
As a matter of fact I am making a simple program that renders such images myself based on Raytracing in one Weekend.
Now the thing is that I wanted to somehow name this program. I used the term “ray tracer” as this is the one used in the book.
I have heard a lot of different terms however and I would be interested to know what exactly is the difference between ray tracing, ray matching, ray casting, path tracing and potentially any other common ray-related algorithms. I was able to find some comparisons of these techniques online, but they all compared only two of these and some definitions overlapped, so I wanted to ask this question about all four techniques.
My understanding of this is:
ray cast
is using raster image to hold the scene and usually stop on first hit (no reflections and ray splitting) and does not necessarily cast ray on per pixel basis (usually per row or column of screen). The 3D version of this is called Voxel space ray cast however the map is not voxel space instead 2 raster images RGB,Height are used.
For more info see:
ray cast
Voxel space ray casting
(back) ray trace
This usually follows physical properties of light so ray split in reflected and refracted and we stop usually after some number of hits. The scene is represented either with BR meshes or with Analytical equations or both.
for more info see:
GLSL 3D Mesh back raytracer
GLSL 3D Volumetric back raytracer
the back means we cast the rays from camera to scene (on per pixel basis) instead of from light source to everywhere ... to speed up the process a lot at the cost of wrong lighting (but that can be remedied with additional methods on top of this)...
The other therms I am not so sure as I do not use those techniques (at least knowingly):
path tracing
is optimization technique to avoid recursive ray split in ray trace using Monte Carlo (stochastic) approach. So it really does not split the ray but chose randomly between the 2 options (similarly how photons behave in real world) and more rendered frames are then blended together.
ray marching
is optimization technique to speed up ray trace by using SDF (signed distance function) to determine safe advance along the ray so it does not hit anything. But it is confined only to analytical scene.
I am curious about the limits of three.js. The following question is asked mainly as a challenge, not because I actually need the specific knowledge/code right away.
Say you have a game/simulation world model around a sphere geometry representing a planet, like the worlds of the game Populous. The resolution of polygons and textures is sufficient to look smooth when the globe fills the view of an ordinary camera. There are animated macroscopic objects on the surface.
The challenge is to project everything from the model to a global map projection on the screen in real time. The choice of projection is yours, but it must be seamless/continuous, and it must be possible for the user to rotate it, placing any point on the planet surface in the center of the screen. (It is not an option to maintain an alternative model of the world only for visualization.)
There are no limits on the number of cameras etc. allowed, but the performance must be expected to be "realtime", say two-figured FPS or more.
I don't expect ayn proof in the form of a running application (although that would be cool), but some explanation as to how it could be done.
My own initial idea is to place a lot of cameras, in fact one for every pixel in the map projection, around the globe, within a Group object that is attached to some kind of orbit controls (with rotation only), but I expect the number of object culling operations to become a huge performance issue. I am sure there must exist more elegant (and faster) solutions. :-)
why not just use a spherical camera-model (think a 360° camera) and virtually put it in the center of the sphere? So this camera would (if it were physically possible) be wrapped all around the sphere, looking toward the center from all directions.
This camera could be implemented in shaders (instead of the regular projection-matrix) and would produce an equirectangular image of the planet-surface (or in fact any other projection you want, like spherical mercator-projection).
As far as I can tell the vertex-shader can implement any projection you want and it doesn't need to represent a camera that is physically possible. It just needs to produce consistent clip-space coordinates for all vertices. Fragment-Shaders for lighting would still need to operate on the original coordinates, normals etc. but that should be achievable. So the vertex-shader would just need compute (x,y,z) => (phi,theta,r) and go on with that.
Occlusion-culling would need to be disabled, but iirc three.js doesn't do that anyway.
Suppose I have a 3D model:
The model is given in the form of vertices, faces (all triangles) and normal vectors. The model may have holes and/or transparent parts.
For an arbitrarily placed light source at infinity, I have to determine:
[required] which triangles are (partially) shadowed by other triangles
Then, for the partially shadowed triangles:
[bonus] what fraction of the area of the triangle is shadowed
[superbonus] come up with a new mesh that describe the shape of the shadows exactly
My final application has to run on headless machines, that is, they have no GPU. Therefore, all the standard things from OpenGL, OpenCL, etc. might not be the best choice.
What is the most efficient algorithm to determine these things, considering this limitation?
Do you have single mesh or more meshes ?
Meaning if the shadow is projected on single 'ground' surface or on more like room walls or even near objects. According to this info the solutions are very different
for flat ground/wall surfaces
is usually the best way a projected render to this surface
camera direction is opposite to light normal and screen is the render to surface. Surface is not usually perpendicular to light so you need to use projection to compensate... You need 1 render pass for each target surface so it is not suitable if shadow is projected onto near mesh (just for ground/walls)
for more complicated scenes
You need to use more advanced approach. There are quite a number of them and each has its advantages and disadvantages. I would use Voxel map but if you are limited by space than some stencil/vector approach will be better. Of course all of these techniques are quite expensive and without GPU I would not even try to implement them.
This is how Voxel map looks like:
if you want just self shadowing then voxel map size can be only some boundig box around your mesh and in that case you do not incorporate whole mesh volume instead just projection of each pixel into light direction (ignore first voxel...) to avoid shadow on lighted surface
I'm new to three.js and WebGL in general.
The sample at http://css.dzone.com/articles/threejs-render-real-world shows how to use raster GIS terrain data in three.js
Is it possible to use vector GIS data in a scene? For example, I have a series of points representing locations (including height) stored in real-world coordinates (meters). How would I go about displaying those in three.js?
The basic sample at http://threejs.org/docs/59/#Manual/Introduction/Creating_a_scene shows how to create a geometry using coordinates - could I use a similar approach with real-world coordinates such as
"x" : 339494.5,
"y" : 1294953.7,
"z": 0.75
or do I need to convert these into page units? Could I use my points to create a surface on which to drape an aerial image?
I tried modifying the simple sample but I'm not seeing anything (or any error messages): http://jsfiddle.net/slead/KpCfW/
Thanks for any suggestions on what I'm doing wrong, or whether this is indeed possible.
I did a number of things to get the JSFiddle show something.. here: http://jsfiddle.net/HxnnA/
You did not specify any faces in your geometry. In this case I just hard-coded a face with all three of your data points acting as corner. Alternatively you can look into using particles to display your data as points instead of faces.
Set material to THREE.DoubleSide. This is not usually needed or recommended, but helps debugging in early phases, when you can see both sides of a face.
Your camera was probably looking in a wrong direction. Added a lookAt() to point it to the center and made the field of view wider (this just makes it easier to find things while coding).
Your camera near and far planes were likely off-range for the camera position and terrain dimensions. So I increased the far plane distance.
Your coordinate values were quite huge, so I just modified them by hand a bit to make sense in relation to the camera, and to make sure they form a big enough triangle for it to be seen in camera. You could consider dividing your coordinates with something like 100 to make the units smaller. But adjusting the camera to account for the huge scale should be enough too.
Nothing wrong with your approach, just make sure you feed the data so that it makes sense considering the camera location, direction and near + far planes. Pay attention to how you make the faces. The parameters to Face3 is the index of each point in your vertices array. Later on you might need to take winding order, normals and uvs into account. You can study the geometry classes included in Three.js for reference.
Three.js does not specify any meaning to units. Its just floating point numbers, and you can decide yourself what a unit (1.0) represents. Whether it's 1mm, 1 inch or 1km, depends on what makes the most sense considering the application and the scale of it. Floating point numbers can bring precision problems when the actual numbers are extremely small or extremely big. My own applications typically deal with stuff in the range from a couple of centimeters to couple hundred meters, and use units in such a way that 1.0 = 1 meter, that has been working fine.
I need the fastest sphere mapping algorithm. Something like Bresenham's line drawing one.
Something like the implementation that I saw in Star Control 2 (rotating planets).
Are there any already invented and/or implemented techniques for this?
I really don't want to reinvent the bicycle. Please, help...
Description of the problem.
I have a place on the 2D surface where the sphere has to appear. Sphere (let it be an Earth) has to be textured with fine map and has to have an ability to scale and rotate freely. I want to implement it with a map or some simple transformation function of coordinates: each pixel on the 2D image of the sphere is defined as a number of pixels from the cylindrical map of the sphere. This gives me an ability to implement the antialiasing of the resulting image. Also I think about using mipmaps to implement mapping if one pixel on resulting picture is corresponding to more than one pixel on the original map (for example, close to poles of the sphere). Deeply inside I feel that this can be implemented with some trivial math. But all these thoughts are just my thoughts.
This question is a little bit related to this one: Textured spheres without strong distortion, but there were no answers available on my question.
UPD: I suppose that I have no hardware support. I want to have an cross-platform solution.
The standard way to do this kind of mapping is a cube map: the sphere is projected onto the 6 sides of a cube. Modern graphics cards support this kind of texture at the hardware level, including full texture filtering; I believe mipmapping is also supported.
An alternative method (which is not explicitly supported by hardware, but which can be implemented with reasonable performance by procedural shaders) is parabolic mapping, which projects the sphere onto two opposing parabolas (each of which is mapped to a circle in the middle of a square texture). The parabolic projection is not a projective transformation, so you'll need to handle the math "by hand".
In both cases, the distortion is strictly limited. Due to the hardware support, I recommend the cube map.
There is a nice new way to do this: HEALPix.
Advantages over any other mapping:
The bitmap can be divided into equal parts (very little distortion)
Very simple, recursive geometry of the sphere with arbitrary precision.
Example image.
Did you take a look at Jim Blinn's articles "How to draw a sphere" ? I do not have access to the full articles, but it looks like what you need.
I'm a big fan of StarconII, but unfortunately I don't remember the details of what the planet drawing looked like...
The first option is triangulating the sphere and drawing it with standard 3D polygons. This has definite weaknesses as far as versimilitude is concerned, but it uses the available hardware acceleration and can be made to look reasonably good.
If you want to roll your own, you can rasterize it yourself. Foley, van Dam et al's Computer Graphics -- Principles and Practice has a chapter on Bresenham-style algorithms; you want the section on "Scan Converting Ellipses".
For the point cloud idea I suggested in earlier comments: you could avoid runtime parameterization questions by preselecting and storing the (x,y,z) coordinates of surface points instead of a 2D map. I was thinking of partially randomizing the point locations on the sphere, so that they wouldn't cause structured aliasing when transformed (forwards, backwards, whatever 8^) onto the screen. On the downside, you'd have to deal with the "fill" factor -- summing up the colors as you draw them, and dividing by the number of points. Er, also, you'd have the problem of what to do if there are no points; e.g., if you want to zoom in with extreme magnification, you'll need to do something like look for the nearest point in that case.