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.
Related
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 am using Three.js to create a simple game, i load about 100 low poly models in obj format but the performance is not smooth, all models size not more than 18 MB, if i use JSON format will it be faster although the size will be more than double?
i tried Collada but for simple objects like my case obj is faster, if JSON is not the best solution, what is the best one?
Not any one file format is better overall, depending on your needs and requirements external software used and if it consist of animation .Personally I generally don't use json that much i use obj but json is heavily supported by three.js.. but that's more of an opinion.
There are many factors as too why your application can be heavy.
with out source code or the model files themselves I can only speculate.
Few things to consider:
Are your models optimized as best you can , 100 models in one scene is quiet allot at one time at 18mb, is this including textures?.
Are Textures compressed and reused.This will increase performance.
From shadows , lighting and animation types all have an impact, Google has plenty of resources to offer you.
There are several techniques to keep your poly count down: subdivision is a good example of this, there is a really useful article on this.
http://www.kadrmasconcepts.com/blog/2011/11/06/subdivision-surfaces-with-three-js/
Also LOD Level OF DETAIL is visible depending on how far or near an object is.
A great useful explanation here:
http://www.pheelicks.com/2014/03/rendering-large-terrains/
Three.js supports this with out any added libs..
Detail and how you render it is the key for best performance..
Even down to how you have set up your project can have a major influence.Take a look at functions and how you use them, for example on mouse move and dom element clicks can slow your three.js app dramatically if they are not optimized and used efficiently.
Reuse and share is your best option, There is no point in loading the same model twice because one is blue and the other is green...
I think that there is no better format? It really depends what you need and what not. However, for me I will go for obj!
Three.JS noob here trying to do 2d visualization.
I used d3.js to make an interactive visualization involving thousands of nodes (rectangle shaped). Needless to say there were performance issues during animation because Browsers have to create an svg DOM element for every one of those 10 thousand nodes.
I wish to recreate the same visualization using WebGl in order to leverage hardware acceleration.
Now ThreeJS is a library which I have choosen because of its popularity (btw, I did look at PixiJS and its api didn't appeal to me). I am wanting to know what is the best approach to do 2d graphics in three.js.
I tried creating one PlaneGeometry for every rectangle. But it seems that 10 thousand Plane geometries are not the say to go (animation becomes super duper slow).
I am probably missing something. I just need to know what is the best primitive way to create 2d rectangles and still identify them uniquely so that I can interact with them once drawn.
Thanks for any help.
EDIT: Would you guys suggest to use another library by any chance?
I think you're on the right track with looking at WebGL, but depending on what you're doing in your visualization you might need to get closer to the metal than "out of the box" threejs.
I recommend taking a look at GLSL and taking a look at how you can implement your visualization using vertex and fragment shaders. You can still use threejs for a lot of the WebGL plumbing.
The reason you'll probably need to get directly into GLSL shader work is because you want to take most of the poly manipulation logic out of javascript, at least as much as is possible. Any time you ask js to do a tight loop over tens of thousands of polys to update position, etc... you are going to struggle with CPU usage.
It is going to be much more performant to have js pass in data parameters to your shaders and let the vertex manipulation happen there.
Take a look here: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webgl/shaders/ for a nice shader tutorial.
I'm a structural engineering master student work on a seismic evaluation of a temple structure in Portugal. For the evaluation, I have created a 3D block model of the structure and will use a discrete element code to analyze the behaviour of the structure under a variety of seismic (earthquake) records. The software that I will use for the analysis has the ability to produce snapshots of the structure at regular intervals which can then be put together to make a movie of the response. However, producing the images slows down the analysis. Furthermore, since the pictures are 2D images from a specified angle, there is no possibility to rotate and view the response from other angles without re-running the model (a process that currently takes 3 days of computer time).
I am looking for an alternative method for creating a movie of the response of the structure. What I want is a very lightweight solution, where I can just bring in the block model which I have and then produce the animation by feeding in the location and the three principal axis of each block at regular intervals to produce the animation on the fly. The blocks are described as prisms with the top and bottom planes defining all of the vertices. Since the model is produced as text files, I can modify the output so that it can be read and understood by the animation code. The model is composed of about 180 blocks with 24 vertices per block (so 4320 vertices). The location and three unit vectors describing the block axis are produced by the program and I can write them out in a way that I want.
The main issue is that the quality of the animation should be decent. If the system is vector based and allows for scaling, that would be great. I would like to be able to rotate the model in real time with simple mouse dragging without too much lag or other issues.
I have very limited time (in fact I am already very behind). That is why I wanted to ask the experts here so that I don't waste my time on something that will not work in the end. I have been using Rhino and Grasshopper to generate my model but I don't think it is the right tool for this purpose. I was thinking that Processing might be able to handle this but I don't have any experience with it. Another thing that I would like to be able to do is to maybe have a 3D PDF file for distribution. But I'm not sure if this can be done with 3D PDF.
Any insight or guidance is greatly appreciated.
Don't let the name fool you, but BluffTitler DX9, a commercial software, may be what your looking for.
It's simple interface provides a fast learning curve, may quick tutorials to either watch or dissect. Depending on how fast your GPU is, real-time previews are scalable.
Reference:
Model Layer Page
User Submitted Gallery (3D models)
Jim Merry from tetra4D here. We make the 3D CAD conversion tools for Acrobat X to generate 3D PDFs. Acrobat has a 3D javascript API that enables you to manipulate objects, i.e, you could drive translations, rotations, etc of objects from your animation information after translating your model to 3D PDF. Not sure I would recommend this approach if you are in a hurry however. Also - I don't think there are any commercial 3D PDF generation tools for the formats you are using (Rhino, Grasshopper, Processing).
If you are trying to animate geometric deformations, 3D PDF won't really help you at all. You could capture the animation and encode it as flash video and embed in a PDF, but this a function of the multimedia tool in Acrobat Pro, i.e, is not specific to 3D.
Given a set of 2d images that cover all dimensions of an object (e.g. a car and its roof/sides/front/read), how could I transform this into a 3d objdct?
Is there any libraries that could do this?
Thanks
These "2D images" are usually called "textures". You probably want a 3D library which allows you to specify a 3D model with bitmap textures. The library would depend on platform you are using, but start with looking at OpenGL!
OpenGL for PHP
OpenGL for Java
... etc.
I've heard of the program "Poser" doing this using heuristics for human forms, but otherwise I don't believe this is actually theoretically possible. You are asking to construct volumetric data from flat data (inferring the third dimension.)
I think you'd have to make a ton of assumptions about your geometry, and even then, you'd only really have a shell of the object. If you did this well, you'd have a contiguous surface representing the boundary of the object - not a volumetric object itself.
What you can do, like Tomas suggested, is slap these 2d images onto something. However, you still will need to construct a triangle mesh surface, and actually do all the modeling, for this to present a 3D surface.
I hope this helps.
What there is currently that can do anything close to what you are asking for automagically is extremely proprietary. No libraries, but there are some products.
This core issue is matching corresponding points in the images and being able to say, this spot in image A is this spot in image B, and they both match this spot in image C, etc.
There are three ways to go about this, manually matching (you have the photos and have to use your own brain to find the corresponding points), coded targets, and texture matching.
PhotoModeller, www.photomodeller.com, $1,145.00US, supports manual matching and coded targets. You print out a bunch of images, attach them to your object, shoot your photos, and the software finds the targets in each picture and creates a 3D object based on those points.
PhotoModeller Scanner, $2,595.00US, adds texture matching. Tiny bits of the the images are compared to see if they represent the same source area.
Both PhotoModeller products depend on shooting the images with a calibrated camera where you use a consistent focal length for every shot and you got through a calibration process to map the lens distortion of the camera.
If you can do manual matching, the Match Photo feature of Google SketchUp may do the job, and SketchUp is free. If you can shoot new photos, you can add your own targets like colored sticker dots to the object to help you generate contours.
If your images are drawings, like profile, plan view, etc. PhotoModeller will not help you, but SketchUp may be just the tool you need. You will have to build up each part manually because you will have to supply the intelligence to recognize which lines and points correspond from drawing to drawing.
I hope this helps.