Sign in to follow this  
Oguz286

Building a regular grid for a raytracer

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, I hope i have placed this topic in the right subforum. Anyway, i have built a raytracer last year when i was taking a linear algebra course. The raytracer is very simple and i have no optimizations whatsoever. Now i want implement a regular grid to speed things up a bit (kd-trees for another time, i want to keep it simple). This is what i came up with:
struct aabb {
public:
	aabb() : pos(Float3d(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f)), size(Float3d(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f)) {};
	aabb(Float3d ', Float3d &asize) : pos(apos), size(asize) {};
	Float3d& GetPos() { return pos; }
	Float3d GetSize() { return size; }
	bool Intersect(Triangle& t) {
		

		return false;
	}

private:
	Float3d pos, size;
	Triangle* triangles;
};

My idea was to use aabb-triangle intersection in every aabb and to place those triangles in the pointer-array. 1. Is this a 'good' way? Are there better ways of doing this? 2. I have been struggeling to find some code for the intersection and i have searched the forums and found Moller, SAT, N-tutorials and whatnot, but the point is that i don't understand them all too well. I hope i have been clear :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't really the best way to handle a regular grid - you're not taking advantage of it being a regular grid :)

The aabbox of each cell is implicit in the bounding box of the whole grid (along with the resolution of the grid).

Something like this would serve better:


struct TriangleList
{
std::vector<int> tri_refs;
};

struct RegularGrid
{
int dims[3]; // resolution of grid
float bounds[2][3]; // bounding box of whole grid

TriangleList** grid; // alloc this as new TriangleList*[dims[0]*dims[1]*dims[2]];

};


For each triangle, take its bounding box and insert it into the grid at just those cells it overlaps:


RegularGrid* grid = ...

for each T in triangles:

int min_cell[3];
int max_cell[3];

float tri_bounds[2][3] = bounds_of T

for(int axis=0;axis<3;axis++)
{
min_cell[axis] = ((tri_bounds[0][axis] - grid->bounds[0][axis])/(grid->bounds[1][axis]-grid->bounds[0][axis]) * dims[axis];
max_cell[axis] = ((tri_bounds[1][axis] - grid->bounds[axis][0])/(grid->bounds[1][axis]-grid->bounds[0][axis]) * dims[axis];
}

for(int k=min_cell[2];k<max_cell[2];k++)
for(int j=min_cell[1];j<max_cell[1];j++)
for(int i=min_cell[0];i<max_cell[0];i++)
// yes, these really are nested
grid->grid[i + (j*grid->dim[0]) + (k * grid->dim[0] * grid->dim[1])]->tri_refs.push_back( index_of T );






This isn't optimal as you can guess. A better option is to do an aabox/triangle test within the nested loop there. The aabox of each cell is easy to determine, so all that is left is the triangle/aabox code. As you point out there are plenty of options, below is code from [1]:


#define X 0
#define Y 1
#define Z 2

#define CROSS(dest,v1,v2) dest[0]=v1[1]*v2[2]-v1[2]*v2[1]; dest[1]=v1[2]*v2[0]-v1[0]*v2[2]; dest[2]=v1[0]*v2[1]-v1[1]*v2[0];

#define DOT(v1,v2) (v1[0]*v2[0]+v1[1]*v2[1]+v1[2]*v2[2])

#define SUB(dest,v1,v2) dest[0]=v1[0]-v2[0]; dest[1]=v1[1]-v2[1]; dest[2]=v1[2]-v2[2];

#define FINDMINMAX(x0,x1,x2,min,max) min = max = x0; if(x1<min) min=x1; if(x1>max) max=x1; if(x2<min) min=x2; if(x2>max) max=x2;

inline int planeBoxOverlap(const float normal[3],float d, const float maxbox[3])
{
int q;
float vmin[3],vmax[3];
for(q=X;q<=Z;q++)
{
if(normal[q]>0.0f)
{
vmin[q]=-maxbox[q];
vmax[q]=maxbox[q];
}
else
{
vmin[q]=maxbox[q];
vmax[q]=-maxbox[q];
}
}
if(DOT(normal,vmin)+d>0.0f) return 0;
if(DOT(normal,vmax)+d>=0.0f) return 1;

return 0;
}


/*======================== X-tests ========================*/
#define AXISTEST_X01(a, b, fa, fb) p0 = a*v0[Y] - b*v0[Z]; p2 = a*v2[Y] - b*v2[Z]; if(p0<p2) {min=p0; max=p2;} else {min=p2; max=p0;} rad = fa * boxhalfsize[Y] + fb * boxhalfsize[Z]; if(min>rad || max<-rad) return false;

#define AXISTEST_X2(a, b, fa, fb) p0 = a*v0[Y] - b*v0[Z]; p1 = a*v1[Y] - b*v1[Z]; if(p0<p1) {min=p0; max=p1;} else {min=p1; max=p0;} rad = fa * boxhalfsize[Y] + fb * boxhalfsize[Z]; if(min>rad || max<-rad) return false;

/*======================== Y-tests ========================*/
#define AXISTEST_Y02(a, b, fa, fb) p0 = -a*v0[X] + b*v0[Z]; p2 = -a*v2[X] + b*v2[Z]; if(p0<p2) {min=p0; max=p2;} else {min=p2; max=p0;} rad = fa * boxhalfsize[X] + fb * boxhalfsize[Z]; if(min>rad || max<-rad) return false;

#define AXISTEST_Y1(a, b, fa, fb) p0 = -a*v0[X] + b*v0[Z]; p1 = -a*v1[X] + b*v1[Z]; if(p0<p1) {min=p0; max=p1;} else {min=p1; max=p0;} rad = fa * boxhalfsize[X] + fb * boxhalfsize[Z]; if(min>rad || max<-rad) return false;

/*======================== Z-tests ========================*/

#define AXISTEST_Z12(a, b, fa, fb) p1 = a*v1[X] - b*v1[Y]; p2 = a*v2[X] - b*v2[Y]; if(p2<p1) {min=p2; max=p1;} else {min=p1; max=p2;} rad = fa * boxhalfsize[X] + fb * boxhalfsize[Y]; if(min>rad || max<-rad) return false;

#define AXISTEST_Z0(a, b, fa, fb) p0 = a*v0[X] - b*v0[Y]; p1 = a*v1[X] - b*v1[Y]; if(p0<p1) {min=p0; max=p1;} else {min=p1; max=p0;} rad = fa * boxhalfsize[X] + fb * boxhalfsize[Y]; if(min>rad || max<-rad) return false;

inline bool triBoxOverlap(const float boxcenter[3],const float boxhalfsize[3],const Vec3& trip0,const Vec3& trip1,const Vec3& trip2)
{

/* use separating axis theorem to test overlap between triangle and box */
/* need to test for overlap in these directions: */
/* 1) the {x,y,z}-directions (actually, since we use the AABB of the triangle */
/* we do not even need to test these) */
/* 2) normal of the triangle */
/* 3) crossproduct(edge from tri, {x,y,z}-directin) */
/* this gives 3x3=9 more tests */
float v0[3],v1[3],v2[3];
float axis[3];
float min,max,d,p0,p1,p2,rad,fex,fey,fez;
float normal[3],e0[3],e1[3],e2[3];

/* This is the fastest branch on Sun */
/* move everything so that the boxcenter is in (0,0,0) */
SUB(v0,trip0,boxcenter);
SUB(v1,trip1,boxcenter);
SUB(v2,trip2,boxcenter);

/* compute triangle edges */
SUB(e0,v1,v0); /* tri edge 0 */
SUB(e1,v2,v1); /* tri edge 1 */
SUB(e2,v0,v2); /* tri edge 2 */

/* Bullet 3: */
/* test the 9 tests first (this was faster) */
fex = fabs(e0[X]);
fey = fabs(e0[Y]);
fez = fabs(e0[Z]);
AXISTEST_X01(e0[Z], e0[Y], fez, fey);
AXISTEST_Y02(e0[Z], e0[X], fez, fex);
AXISTEST_Z12(e0[Y], e0[X], fey, fex);

fex = fabs(e1[X]);
fey = fabs(e1[Y]);
fez = fabs(e1[Z]);
AXISTEST_X01(e1[Z], e1[Y], fez, fey);
AXISTEST_Y02(e1[Z], e1[X], fez, fex);
AXISTEST_Z0(e1[Y], e1[X], fey, fex);

fex = fabs(e2[X]);
fey = fabs(e2[Y]);
fez = fabs(e2[Z]);
AXISTEST_X2(e2[Z], e2[Y], fez, fey);
AXISTEST_Y1(e2[Z], e2[X], fez, fex);
AXISTEST_Z12(e2[Y], e2[X], fey, fex);

/* Bullet 1: */
/* first test overlap in the {x,y,z}-directions */
/* find min, max of the triangle each direction, and test for overlap in */
/* that direction -- this is equivalent to testing a minimal AABB around */
/* the triangle against the AABB */

/* test in X-direction */
FINDMINMAX(v0[X],v1[X],v2[X],min,max);
if(min>boxhalfsize[X] || max<-boxhalfsize[X]) return false;

/* test in Y-direction */
FINDMINMAX(v0[Y],v1[Y],v2[Y],min,max);
if(min>boxhalfsize[Y] || max<-boxhalfsize[Y]) return false;

/* test in Z-direction */
FINDMINMAX(v0[Z],v1[Z],v2[Z],min,max);
if(min>boxhalfsize[Z] || max<-boxhalfsize[Z]) return false;

/* Bullet 2: */
/* test if the box intersects the plane of the triangle */
/* compute plane equation of triangle: normal*x+d=0 */
CROSS(normal,e0,e1);
d=-DOT(normal,v0); /* plane eq: normal.x+d=0 */
if(!planeBoxOverlap(normal,d,boxhalfsize)) return false;

return true; /* box and triangle overlaps */
}







(apologies for poor formatting, URL to code is listed in paper)

[1]: Fast 3D Triangle-Box Overlap Testing - Tomas Akenine-MÄoller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey thanks alot for the detailed answer! +rep for you :)

I have a question though. Why is the first method not optimal? Does it not find triangles that do not have a vector inside the aabb but still contain a part of it in the aabb?

About the second method, i found it but it was the only method i found. Aren't there other methods?

Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep thats exactly why it isn't optimal. Imagine a long thin triangle lying diagonally within the grid so that it overlaps many cells. The AA box of the triangle overlaps many more cells than the triangle actually intersects (probably > 3x). For each of those boxes that the triangle is said to overlap but doesn't really you'll be wasting a ray/triangle intersection.

As for other tri/box tests - there are more but I don't have any to hand right now :) Simple googling doesn't turn up much - I guess Mollers method is pretty optimal and noone can be arsed to do more research ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this