I have to render a mesh of a few thousand polygons in Google Sketchup. I find that add_face tends to get slower as the number of faces in the model increases. I believe this to be due to some edge detection algorithm that Sketchup is running behind the scenes. Hopefully, there should be some way to suppress this edge detection or other processing that Sketchup is doing till all faces have been added to the model.
I found add_faces_from_mesh and fill_from_mesh to be much faster but I end up with a mesh consisting of Surface instances instead of the Face and Edge objects I am looking for.
So, what is the fastest way to generate a model consisting of Face and Edge objects in Sketchup? Is there a way to generate Edge and Face objects from a Surface object?
Update: I just read here that using Model::start_transaction and Model::commit_transaction can be used to speed things up but I found that the improvements are not very significant. Anything else I can do?
I found add_faces_from_mesh and
fill_from_mesh to be much faster but I
end up with a mesh consisting of
Surface instances instead of the Face
and Edge objects I am looking for.
Calling add_faces_from_mesh or fill_from_mesh with the smooth_flags parameter explicitly set to zero correctly constructs Face and Edge objects. Sketchup Documentation claims that smooth_flags defaults to zero... my trials show otherwise.
Just to clarify - add_faces_from_mesh and fill_from_mesh do add Edges and Faces - however, the default behaviour is to create a mesh with soft and smooth edges. When you have a set of Faces connected by Soft edges they will be treated as a surface by SketchUp and Entity Info window will say "Surface" when you select them.
However - internally it's still just a set of edges and faces - SketchUp has no Surface entity.
As for Model::start_transaction - you must specify true for the second disable_ui argument in order to see any speed gains. But as you have noticed, SU is very slow to add entities - the more there is in the entities collection you add to the slower it gets. The absolute fastest way to add entities is fill_from_mesh.
Related
I'm developing a simple game, where user can place different but modular objects (for instance: tracks, road etc).
My question is: how to match and place different object when placed one near the other ?
My first approach is to create an hidden child object (a box) for each module objects, and put it in the border where is possible to place other object (see my image example), so i can use that coordinates (x,y,z) to align other object.
But i don't know if the best approach.
Thanks
Summary:
1.Define what is a "snapping point"
2.Define which is your threshold
3.Update new game object position
Little Explanation
1.
So I suppose that you need a way to define which parts of the object are the "snapping points".
Cause they can be clear in some examples, like a Cube, where the whole vertex could be snapping points, but it's hard to define that every vertex in amorphous objects.
A simple solution could be the one exposed by #PierreBaret, whic consists in define on your transform component which are the "snapping points".
The other one is the one you propouse, creating empty game objects that will act as snapping points locations on the game object.
2.After having those snaped points, when you will drop your new gameObject, you need to define a threshold, as long as you don't want that every object snaps allways to the nearest game object.
3.So you define a minimum distance between snapping points, so if your snapping point is under that threshold, you will need to update it's position, to adjust to the the snapped point.
Visual Representation:
Note: The Threshold distance is showing just ONE of the 4 current threshold checks on the 4 vertex in the square, but this dark blue circle should be repilcate 3 more times, one for each green snapping point of the red square
Of course this method seems expensive, you can make some improvements like setting a first threshold between gameobjects, and if the gameObject is inside this threshold, then check snapping threshold distance.
Hope it helps!
Approach for arbitrary objects/models and deformable models.
[A] A physical approach would consider all the surfaces of the 2 objects, and you might need to check that objects don't overlap, using dot products between surfaces. That's a bit more expensive computing, but nothing nasty. If there is no match involved here, you'll be able to add matching features (see [B]). However, that's the only way to work with non predefined models or deformable models.
Approaches for matching simple and complex models
[B] Snapping points are a good thing but it's not sufficient alone. I think you need to make an object have:
a sparse representation (eg., complex oriented sphere to a cube),
and place key snapping points,
tagged by polarity or color, and eventually orientation (that's oriented snapping points); eg., in the case of rails, you'll want rails to snap {+} with {+} and forbid {+} with {-}. In the case of a more complex object, or when you have several orientations (eg., 2 faces of a surface, but only one is candidate for an pair of objects matching) you'll need more than 2 polarities, but 3 different ones per matching candidate surface or feature therefore the colors (or any enumeration). You need 3 different colors to make sure there is a unique 3D space configuration. You create something that is called in chemistry an enantiomer.
You can also use point pair features that describes the relative
position and orientation of two oriented points, when an oriented
surface is not appropriate.
References
Some are computer vision papers or book extracts, but they expose algorithms and concepts to achieve what I developed in my answer.
Model Globally, Match Locally: Efficient and Robust 3D Object Recognition, Drost et al.
3D Models and Matching
Let's say I have a static object and a movable object which can be moved and rotated, what is the best way to very quickly calculate the difference of those two meshes?
Precision here is not so important, speed is though, since I have to use it in the update phase of the main loop.
Maybe, given the strict time limit, modifying the static object's vertices and triangles directly is to be preferred. Should voxels be preferred here instead?
EDIT: The use case is an interactive viewer of a wood panel (parallelepiped) and a milling tool (a revolved contour, some like these).
The milling tool can be rotated and can work oriented at varying degrees (5 axes).
EDIT 2: The milling tool may not pierce the wood.
EDIT 3: The panel can be as large as 6000x2000mm and the milling tool can be as little as 3x3mm.
If you need the best possible performance then the generic CSG approach may be too slow for you (but still depending on meshes and target hardware).
You may try to find some specialized algorithm, coded for your specific meshes. Let's say you have two cubes - one is a 'wall' and second is a 'window' - then it's much easier/faster to compute resulting mesh with your custom code, than full CSG. Unfortunately you don't say anything about your meshes.
You may also try to make it a 2D problem, use some simplified meshes to compute the result that will 'look like expected'.
If the movement of your meshes is somehow limited you may be able to precompute full or partial results for different mesh combinations to use at runtime.
You may use some space partitioning like BSP or Octrees to divide your meshes during precomputing stage. This way you could split one big problem into many smaller ones that may be faster to compute or at least to make the solution multi-threaded.
You've said about voxels - if you're fine with their look and limits you may voxelize both meshes and just read and mix two voxel values, instead of one. Then you would triangulate it using algorithm like Marching Cubes.
Those are all just some general ideas but we'll need better info to help you more.
EDIT:
With your description it looks like you're modeling some bas-relief, so you may use Relief Mapping to fake this effect. It's based on a height map stored as a texture, so you'd need to just update few pixels of the texture and render a plane. It should be quite fast compared to other approaches, the downside is that it's based on height map, so you can't get shapes that Tee Slot or Dovetail cutter would create.
If you want the real geometry then I'd start from a simple plane as your panel (don't need full 3D yet, just a front surface) and divide it with a 2D grid. The grid element should be slightly bigger than the drill size and every element is a separate mesh. In the frame update you'd cut one, or at most 4 elements that are touched with a drill. Thanks to this grid all your cutting operations will be run with very simple mesh so they may work with your intended speed. You can also cut all current elements in separate threads. After the cutting is done you'll upload to the GPU only currently modified elements so you may end up with quite complex mesh but small modifications per frame.
I was looking at the http://threejs.org/examples/webgl_nearestneighbour.html and had a few questions come up. I see that they use the kdtree to stick all the particles positions and then have a function to determine the nearest particle and color it. Let's say that you have a canvas with around 100 buffered geometries with around 72000 vertices / geometry. The only way I know to do this is that you get the positions of the buffered geometries and then put them into the kdtree to determine the nearest vertice and go from there. This sounds very expensive.
What other way is there to return the objects that are near the camera. Something like how THREE.LOD does it? http://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_lod It has the ability to see how far an object is and render the different levels depending on the setting you inputted.
Define "expensive". The point of the kdtree is to find nearest neighbour elements quickly, its primary focus is not on saving memory (Although it does everything inplace on a typed array, it's quit cheap in terms of memory already). If you need to save memory you maybe have to find another way.
Yet a typed array with length 21'600'000 is indeed a bit long. I highly doubt you have to have every single vertex in there. Why not have a position reference point for every geometry part? And, if you need to get the vertices associated to that point, a dictionary. Then you can call myGeometryVertices[ geometryReferencePoint ].
Three.LOD works with raycasts. If you have a (few) hundred objects that might work well. If you have hundred thousands or even millions of positions you'll get some troubles. Also if you're not using meshes; you can't raytrace e.g. a particle.
Really just build your own logic with them. None of those two provide a prebuilt perfect-for-all-cases solution.
I have a lot of polygons. Ideally, all the polygons must not overlap one other, but they can be located adjacent to one another.
But practically, I would have to allow for slight polygon overlap ( defined by a certain tolerance) because all these polygons are obtained from user hand drawing input, which is not as machine-precised as I want them to be.
My question is, is there any software library components that:
Allows one to input a range of polygons
Check if the polygons are overlapped more than a prespecified tolerance
If yes, then stop, or else, continue
Create mesh in terms of coordinates and elements for the polygons by grouping common vertex and edges together?
More importantly, link back the mesh edges to the original polygon(s)'s edge?
Or is there anyone tackle this issue before?
This issue is a daily "bread" of GIS applications - this is what is exactly done there. We also learned that at a GIS course. Look into GIS systems how they address this issue. E.g. ArcGIS define so called topology rules and has some functions to check if the edited features are topologically correct. See http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=Topology_rules
This is pretty long, only because the question is so big. I've tried to group my comments based on your bullet points.
Components to draw polygons
My guess is that you'll have limited success without providing more information - a component to draw polygons will be very much coupled to the language and UI paradigm you are using for the rest of your project, ie. code for a web component will look very different to a native component.
Perhaps an alternative is to separate this element of the process out from the rest of what you're trying to do. There are some absolutely fantastic pre-existing editors that you can use to create 2d and 3d polygons.
Inkscape is an example of a vector graphics editor that makes it easy to enter 2d polygons, and has the advantage of producing output SVG, which is reasonably easy to parse.
In three dimensions Blender is an open source editor that can be used to produce arbitrary geometries that can be exported to a number of formats.
If you can use a google-maps API (possibly in an native HTML rendering control), and you are interested in adding spatial points on a map overlay, you may be interested in related click-to-draw polygon question on stackoverflow. From past experience, other map APIs like OpenLayers support similar approaches.
Check whether polygons are overlapped
Thomas T made the point in his answer, that there are families of related predicates that can be used to address this and related queries. If you are literally just looking for overlaps and other set theoretic operations (union, intersection, set difference) in two dimensions you can use the General Polygon Clipper
You may also need to consider the slightly more generic problem when two polygons that don't overlap or share a vertex when they should. You can use a Minkowski sum to dilate (enlarge) two and three dimensional polygons to avoid such problems. The Computational Geometry Algorithms Library has robust implementations of these algorithms.
I think that it's more likely that you are really looking for a piece of software that can perform vertex welding, Christer Ericson's book Real-time Collision Detection includes extensive and very readable description of the basics in this field, and also on related issues of edge snapping, crack detection, T-junctions and more. However, even though code snippets are included for that book, I know of no ready made library that addresses these problems, in particular, no complete implementation is given for anything beyond basic vertex welding.
Obviously all 3D packages (blender, maya, max, rhino) all include built in software and tools to solve this problem.
Group polygons based on vertices
From past experience, this turned out to be one of the most time consuming parts of developing software to solve problems in this area. It requires reasonable understanding of graph theory and algorithms to traverse boundaries. It is worth relying upon a solid geometry or graph library to do the heavy lifting for you. In the past I've had success with igraph.
Link the updated polygons back to the originals.
Again, from past experience, this is just a case of careful bookkeeping, and some very careful design of your mesh classes up-front. I'd like to give more advice, but even after spending a big chunk of the last six months on this, I'm still struggling to find a "nice" way to do this.
Other Comments
If you're interacting with users, I would strongly recommend avoiding this issue where possible by using an editor that "snaps", rounding all user entered points onto a grid. This will hopefully significantly reduce the amount of work that you have to do.
Yes, you can use OGR. It has python bindings. Specifically, the Geometry class has an Intersects method. I don't fully understand what you want in points 4 and 5.
I'v always wondered this. In a game like GTA where there are 10s of thousands of objects, how does the game know as soon as you're on a health pack?
There can't possibly be an event listener for each object? Iterating isn't good either? I'm just wondering how it's actually done.
There's no one answer to this but large worlds are often space-partitioned by using something along the lines of a quadtree or kd-tree which brings search times for finding nearest neighbors below linear time (fractional power, or at worst O( N^(2/3) ) for a 3D game). These methods are often referred to as BSP for binary space partitioning.
With regards to collision detection, each object also generally has a bounding volume mesh (set of polygons forming a convex hull) associated with it. These highly simplified meshes (sometimes just a cube) aren't drawn but are used in the detection of collisions. The most rudimentary method is to create a plane that is perpendicular to the line connecting the midpoints of each object with the plane intersecting the line at the line's midpoint. If an object's bounding volume has points on both sides of this plane, it is a collision (you only need to test one of the two bounding volumes against the plane). Another method is the enhanced GJK distance algorithm. If you want a tutorial to dive through, check out NeHe Productions' OpenGL lesson #30.
Incidently, bounding volumes can also be used for other optimizations such as what are called occlusion queries. This is a process of determining which objects are behind other objects (occluders) and therefore do not need to be processed / rendered. Bounding volumes can also be used for frustum culling which is the process of determining which objects are outside of the perspective viewing volume (too near, too far, or beyond your field-of-view angle) and therefore do not need to be rendered.
As Kylotan noted, using a bounding volume can generate false positives when detecting occlusion and simply does not work at all for some types of objects such as toroids (e.g. looking through the hole in a donut). Having objects like these occlude correctly is a whole other thread on portal-culling.
Quadtrees and Octrees, another quadtree, are popular ways, using space partitioning, to accomplish this. The later example shows a 97% reduction in processing over a pair-by-pair brute-force search for collisions.
A common technique in game physics engines is the sweep-and-prune method. This is explained in David Baraff's SIGGRAPH notes (see Motion with Constraints chapter). Havok definitely uses this, I think it's an option in Bullet, but I'm not sure about PhysX.
The idea is that you can look at the overlaps of AABBs (axis-aligned bounding boxes) on each axis; if the projection of two objects' AABBs overlap on all three axes, then the AABBs must overlap. You can check each axis relatively quickly by sorting the start and end points of the AABBs; there's a lot of temporal coherence between frames since usually most objects aren't moving very fast, so the sorting doesn't change much.
Once sweep-and-prune detects an overlap between AABBs, you can do the more detailed check for the objects, e.g. sphere vs. box. If the detailed check reveals a collision, you can then resolve the collision by applying forces, and/or trigger a game event or play a sound effect.
Correct. Normally there is not an event listener for each object. Often there is a non-binary tree structure in memory that mimics your games map. Imagine a metro/underground map.
This memory strucutre is a collection of things in the game. You the player, monsters and items that you can pickup or items that might blowup and do you harm. So as the player moves around the game the player object pointer is moved in the game/map memory structure.
see How should I have my game entities knowledgeable of the things around them?
I would like to recommend the solid book of Christer Ericson on real time collision detection. It presents the basics of collision detection while providing references on the contemporary research efforts.
Real-Time Collision Detection (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive 3-D Technology)
There are a lot of optimizations can be used.
Firstly - any object (say with index i for example) is bounded by cube, with center coordinates CXi,CYi, and size Si
Secondly - collision detection works with estimations:
a) Find all pairs cubes i,j with condition: Abs(CXi-CXj)<(Si+Sj) AND Abs(CYi-CYj)<(Si+Sj)
b) Now we work only with pairs got in a). We calculate distances between them more accurately, something like Sqrt(Sqr(CXi-CXj)+Sqr(CYi-CYj)), objects now represented as sets of few numbers of simple figures - cubes, spheres, cones - and we using geometry formulas to check these figures intersections.
c) Objects from b) with detected intersections are processed as collisions with physics calculating etc.