• Advertisement


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OpenGL Large object in OpenGL look ugly???

This topic is 5682 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I finally started the development of a 3D space game, I can move around the spaceship with real Newtonion acceleration/velocity physics already But of course a space game will require large planets, and I took an OpenGL unit of "1" to be 1 meter. So a realistic planet will have to be around the 20.000.000 OGL units. But just to test I made some cube-planets, and even if they're only 1000 units they're uglier than the EXACT same scene 1000 times smaller! This picture shows the difference: note the pink pixels on the right picture, that is another side of the cube that should be invisible. But for bigger scenes with more cubes at larger distances, it looks even worse that this. What can I do against that? EDIT: this pic shows it when I made the cubes 1.000.000 OGL units [edited by - Lode on July 30, 2002 7:24:44 AM]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do backface culling - what you are seeing is a classic symptom of no backface culling. This is (probably) compounded by the fact that your near and far clipping planes will have to be displaced to a much greater degree in the larger scene, leading to a lower resolution in the zbuffer at greater distances and showing the effect of not backface culling.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, better for size 1000 already but still not good for size 1.000.000

I use



And the sides of the cubes are oriented correctly, and if the cubes have size 1.000.000 it looks like this (two times a screenie of the same):

Am I doing something totally stupid here?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm I don''t know :/
I use basecode from nehe to initialize OpenGL, so probably the same as nehe''s basecode...
Is it even possible to use extremely big worlds or is that at the cost of small details? I mean, even if I''d use a LOD system so that detailed spaceships are only drawn if they''re close to me and only big undetailed planets are drawn far away, would it be possible?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Check your pixelformat structure (PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR), and check the cDepthBits member. Try setting it to 32 if it''s not, and see if that improves your problem.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
the way it works in spacegames is: without z buffer

you have to sort your scene and polys, maybe you can draw the nearest highdetail objects with a zbuffer (and a near farclipping plane).

there are some algorithms which might help you.
BSP - to sort the polys inside a object
multiple indexlist- make at leats 6 indexlist which have different polygone order, so depending on the view of the camera you can use the best matching one.

of course, first you have to sort the objects.


[edited by - rapso on July 30, 2002 9:23:01 AM]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm 32 bits depth buffer didn''t seem to help

I guess I''ll have to look into it further and try BSP...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW what I want to achieve is that there''s no skybox at all, all stars, planets, ... should be real 3D objects (well I''ll turn them into a simple point if they''re far away but you can fly to it if you want to and then they become spheres), and at the same time relatively detailed ships, spacestations, ... should be visible.
Does there exist an open source project like this somewhere that I can take a look at maybe?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
You''re trying to be too ambitious. You can''t accurately represent the size of astronomical units seamlessly. Check out gamasutras three articles on rendering a procedural universe. It talks about pitfalls and solutions of trying to render planets, systems, and galaxies to scale.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
You might run into floating precision problems doing so.. not only for z-buffer errors, but also for object detail.. polys might start jumping around at far distance from the origin. you might wanna try doubles instead of floats.
hope that helped,

Visit Rarebyte!
and no!, there are NO kangaroos in Austria (I got this questions a few times over in the states )

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LifeArtist
      Good Evening,
      I want to make a 2D game which involves displaying some debug information. Especially for collision, enemy sights and so on ...
      First of I was thinking about all those shapes which I need will need for debugging purposes: circles, rectangles, lines, polygons.
      I am really stucked right now because of the fundamental question:
      Where do I store my vertices positions for each line (object)? Currently I am not using a model matrix because I am using orthographic projection and set the final position within the VBO. That means that if I add a new line I would have to expand the "points" array and re-upload (recall glBufferData) it every time. The other method would be to use a model matrix and a fixed vbo for a line but it would be also messy to exactly create a line from (0,0) to (100,20) calculating the rotation and scale to make it fit.
      If I proceed with option 1 "updating the array each frame" I was thinking of having 4 draw calls every frame for the lines vao, polygons vao and so on. 
      In addition to that I am planning to use some sort of ECS based architecture. So the other question would be:
      Should I treat those debug objects as entities/components?
      For me it would make sense to treat them as entities but that's creates a new issue with the previous array approach because it would have for example a transform and render component. A special render component for debug objects (no texture etc) ... For me the transform component is also just a matrix but how would I then define a line?
      Treating them as components would'nt be a good idea in my eyes because then I would always need an entity. Well entity is just an id !? So maybe its a component?
    • By QQemka
      Hello. I am coding a small thingy in my spare time. All i want to achieve is to load a heightmap (as the lowest possible walking terrain), some static meshes (elements of the environment) and a dynamic character (meaning i can move, collide with heightmap/static meshes and hold a varying item in a hand ). Got a bunch of questions, or rather problems i can't find solution to myself. Nearly all are deal with graphics/gpu, not the coding part. My c++ is on high enough level.
      Let's go:
      Heightmap - i obviously want it to be textured, size is hardcoded to 256x256 squares. I can't have one huge texture stretched over entire terrain cause every pixel would be enormous. Thats why i decided to use 2 specified textures. First will be a tileset consisting of 16 square tiles (u v range from 0 to 0.25 for first tile and so on) and second a 256x256 buffer with 0-15 value representing index of the tile from tileset for every heigtmap square. Problem is, how do i blend the edges nicely and make some computationally cheap changes so its not obvious there are only 16 tiles? Is it possible to generate such terrain with some existing program?
      Collisions - i want to use bounding sphere and aabb. But should i store them for a model or entity instance? Meaning i have 20 same trees spawned using the same tree model, but every entity got its own transformation (position, scale etc). Storing collision component per instance grats faster access + is precalculated and transformed (takes additional memory, but who cares?), so i stick with this, right? What should i do if object is dynamically rotated? The aabb is no longer aligned and calculating per vertex min/max everytime object rotates/scales is pretty expensive, right?
      Drawing aabb - problem similar to above (storing aabb data per instance or model). This time in my opinion per model is enough since every instance also does not have own vertex buffer but uses the shared one (so 20 trees share reference to one tree model). So rendering aabb is about taking the model's aabb, transforming with instance matrix and voila. What about aabb vertex buffer (this is more of a cosmetic question, just curious, bumped onto it in time of writing this). Is it better to make it as 8 points and index buffer (12 lines), or only 2 vertices with min/max x/y/z and having the shaders dynamically generate 6 other vertices and draw the box? Or maybe there should be just ONE 1x1x1 cube box template moved/scaled per entity?
      What if one model got a diffuse texture and a normal map, and other has only diffuse? Should i pass some bool flag to shader with that info, or just assume that my game supports only diffuse maps without fancy stuff?
      There were several more but i forgot/solved them at time of writing
      Thanks in advance
    • By RenanRR
      Hi All,
      I'm reading the tutorials from learnOpengl site (nice site) and I'm having a question on the camera (https://learnopengl.com/Getting-started/Camera).
      I always saw the camera being manipulated with the lookat, but in tutorial I saw the camera being changed through the MVP arrays, which do not seem to be camera, but rather the scene that changes:
      Vertex Shader:
      #version 330 core layout (location = 0) in vec3 aPos; layout (location = 1) in vec2 aTexCoord; out vec2 TexCoord; uniform mat4 model; uniform mat4 view; uniform mat4 projection; void main() { gl_Position = projection * view * model * vec4(aPos, 1.0f); TexCoord = vec2(aTexCoord.x, aTexCoord.y); } then, the matrix manipulated:
      ..... glm::mat4 projection = glm::perspective(glm::radians(fov), (float)SCR_WIDTH / (float)SCR_HEIGHT, 0.1f, 100.0f); ourShader.setMat4("projection", projection); .... glm::mat4 view = glm::lookAt(cameraPos, cameraPos + cameraFront, cameraUp); ourShader.setMat4("view", view); .... model = glm::rotate(model, glm::radians(angle), glm::vec3(1.0f, 0.3f, 0.5f)); ourShader.setMat4("model", model);  
      So, some doubts:
      - Why use it like that?
      - Is it okay to manipulate the camera that way?
      -in this way, are not the vertex's positions that changes instead of the camera?
      - I need to pass MVP to all shaders of object in my scenes ?
      What it seems, is that the camera stands still and the scenery that changes...
      it's right?
      Thank you
    • By dpadam450
      Sampling a floating point texture where the alpha channel holds 4-bytes of packed data into the float. I don't know how to cast the raw memory to treat it as an integer so I can perform bit-shifting operations.

      int rgbValue = int(textureSample.w);//4 bytes of data packed as color
      // algorithm might not be correct and endianness might need switching.
      vec3 extractedData = vec3(  rgbValue & 0xFF000000,  (rgbValue << 8) & 0xFF000000, (rgbValue << 16) & 0xFF000000);
      extractedData /= 255.0f;
    • By Devashish Khandelwal
      While writing a simple renderer using OpenGL, I faced an issue with the glGetUniformLocation function. For some reason, the location is coming to be -1.
      Anyone has any idea .. what should I do?
  • Advertisement