Quote:Original post by Rakshasa
... is there some way to disable intra-object depth-testing. I don't want to disable the global depth test as I don't want the tree to stick atop everything.

So the short answer to this is yes. When drawing the tree, turn off depth writes, but keep the depth test on. Then draw the tree again with color writes off and depth writes on. That will avoid "intra-object depth-testing".

Unfortunately, this doesn't actually give you the effect you want. If you want correct alpha blending you need to have the faces sorted. Alpha testing might be an option here.

If you are just want something look like transparent, you can change your blend function to GL_ONE and GL_ONE. Of course, this is not really the correct way of doing transparent effect. However, it can fool our eye in most cases as we are less likely picking up this fault.

Looks as though you need to experiment with the opengl pipeline i.e.
to get familiar with blending techniques.

So...Here is experiment (1):

It's a neat little trick I use when prototyping;

or on a less formal level :

"It's a neat little hack that produces quick results :(without sorting at face level)"

so e.g. pseudocode:



Now... that is one example.
If It works for you...then your next task will be to..post back here with an explanation why its works!
Seriously though... let us know what happens...I will be dissappointed if it doesn't help you.


[/source]

Quote:Original post by steven katic
...
"It's a neat little hack that produces quick results :(without sorting at face level)"
...
[/source]

Just to remind you steven, this hack works only if the whole scene contains only a single convex 3D model (e.g. a sphere or a ellipsoid). Otherwise, you still need to do sorting.

Quote:
Just to remind you steven, this hack works only if the whole scene contains only a single convex 3D model (e.g. a sphere or a ellipsoid). Otherwise, you still need to do sorting.

hmmm...yes well.
I do appreciate the "correct" way would be to sort the faces,
especially if the "camera" has six degrees of movement
(or even perhaps less than six).
And by all means I wouldn't stop anyone from recommending learning/knowing/implementing one of the most robust solutions (sorting at face level stuff ) Rakshasa can use.

However, there are advantages to be had due to:

Quote:
The tree is supposed to be viewed from a 45 degree angle above (Similar to any rts, transport/city sim).

This to me , implies perhaps a maximum of 3 degrees of movement?
The little experiment(1) I presented can be a major part of the whole (older?)solution that I believe will make no difference as far as what the user sees, and whether
sorting at face level is implemeted or not. (The other part(s) involve something to do with (things Rakshasa has already alluded to):
(1) how the models are constructed
(2) the order in which the tree models are rendered

Taking advantage of the limitation on the degrees of movement may take a little more thought (and obviously has err... limitations!?).

Whereas sorting of faces takes a lot more work as well as thought...but once done is very transferable to other applications( in this sense being more "correct").

Personally I would experiment with both alternatives (hack and face sorting)
If I was pressed for time(yeah..deadlines) I would do the "hack".
If I was going to move on to more serious 6 degree's of movement in the future
I would do the stuff along the lines of face sorting stuff.

Maybe now there is a little more info here now that will help Rakshasa
make his choice? or...research the topic more?

I think you missed the point, steven.

Your hack works only for a convex 3D scene, for example a single sphere. Otherwise, it will simply break down.

You are assuming the whole scene make of two layers only (back faces and front faces). That's why you can take back faces as further away and front faces nearer. However, when the 3D scene are not convex (e.g. a teapot or two balls), you have more than one layers of back faces (so as front faces). So, depending on the ordering of back faces (so as front faces), drawing order problem occurs as usual. And, it is very noticeable which will make "a difference as far as what the user sees".

Personally, I don't think this hack help. Why would anyone want a 3D scene which contains a single convex 3D model? What is the use of drawing a single sphere on screen or a drawing a single cube on screen?

By the way, it is purely a drawing order problem and therefore have nothing to do with view angle or "degrees of movement" ("degrees of movement"?).

Quote:
Your hack works only for a convex 3D scene, for example a single sphere. Otherwise, it will simply break down.

not true. And I am not going to explain.

Sorry I keep missing the point. It must be my pig headedness.

Quote:
Personally, I don't think this hack help.

I assume you have tried it.

I am sorry, I stand by what I have posted.

Quote:
By the way, it is purely a drawing order problem and therefore have nothing to do with view angle or "degrees of movement" ("degrees of movement"?).

Oh...I thought your drawing order is dependant on your viewing position.
Or am I wrong?

Let's be a little positive....provide Rakshasa your solution.

Quote:
If you are just want something look like transparent, you can change your blend function to GL_ONE and GL_ONE. Of course, this is not really the correct way of doing transparent effect. However, it can fool our eye in most cases as we are less likely picking up this fault.

somehow this seems a little inadequate to me...

Quote:Original post by steven katic

Quote:
Your hack works only for a convex 3D scene, for example a single sphere. Otherwise, it will simply break down.

not true. And I am not going to explain.

If it does work in general, please explain. I would be delighted to find out it does.

In particular, can I draw a transparent "teapot over a plane" correctly with your hack?

Quote:
If it does work in general, please explain. I would be delighted to find out it does.

This is not a general case we are talking about. The solution(s) are
specific to:

Quote:
The tree is supposed to be viewed from a 45 degree angle above (Similar to any rts, transport/city sim).

This is a critical point that should not be overlooked.

Quote:
In particular, can I draw a transparent "teapot over a plane" correctly with your hack?

my goodness... you persist in challenging me ....for nought.

and nought.... you will get.

Why won't you try it yourself? maybe you have?
(I am getting tired of repeating myself)

My advice is: Convince youself.

As an interlude, however, see it in action:

you can try out FileViewer 3.14.2

here




It implements the experiment(1) I provided (plus more).

You can even load a plane, load a teapot and put an alpha texture on it
if you want, and see for yourself... how experiment(1) works and also the
drawbacks of not sorting polygons as you move the camera freely around.

Tear it apart with criticism if you wish but not here, and don't post in this thread about it (email me RE: fileviewer if you need to or), use another thread.

This is Rakshasa thread topic.

Note: UI is similar to 3dsmax 3.x, which hopefully reduces the ui learning
curve for those that have used 3dsmax.


oh, ma_hty, If you still have a problem with my "hack" after trying the fileviewer, put me down as someone who doesn't know what he's taking about it... It is my obvious preference to giving you an explanation...

and maybe spend a little time addressing the questions in my last post:
They are critical.

Cheers

ps: RE: fileviewer: if you have vista, best to disable aero, and run as xp compatible app! warning: also it may time out (Stop/Crash)after 2 seconds of loading(e.g. HUGE models: gotta love microsoft's feature's?)

[Edited by - steven katic on October 27, 2007 9:39:33 PM]