Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
inhahe

OpenGL can you convert to on/off voxels to something seeable?

This topic is 3505 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

say i start with a 3d set of voxels, which are either on or off, representing a solid figure -- meaning all the voxels inside of it are on too. now from this, i have to go to a form that i can show in opengl/directx/whatever. what's the minimum amount of manipulation i have to do to get this done? note that it has to be done fast, because my 3d space will have over 21 million on/off voxels and i want it updated -- that is, from a completely new sets of voxels -- several times a second -- as close to in real-time as possible. i'm actually taking 3-d hyperplanes out of a 4-d set of voxels, so if there's any manipulation i can perform on the entire set before-hand that will allow me to do this fast enough, that would be good. i'll have 4.6 billion 4D voxels in total, but with a 3D array of pointers to run-length encoded rows i should be able to stuff them all into ram in any necessary form. [Edited by - inhahe on November 8, 2008 10:31:47 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
You know the figure is closed, but with no guarantee of concavity. Do you know if the figure is fully connected?

If you can guarantee that it is fully-connected on the cardinal axes (by shared faces of the square voxels, not diagonally by shared edges or vertices), I just had a kind-of trippy idea of "growing" a polygonal shape from the volume.

1. Start with a cube of 8 voxels inside the figure (any 2x2x2 solid area), and create a "live" cube with its vertices on their centers. "Eat" those voxels (erase them).
2. Of all the polygon volumes that are currently "live", try to grow each of their vertices outward from all their other vertices, while staying inside the volume; pick a filled voxel adjacent to the current vertex which is strictly further from the average position of all the other vertices on the current volume. Move the current vertex to that voxel and eat it.
3. If no vertices of a given volume were moved, mark that volume as "dead", and eat all voxels whose centers are inside the volume.
4. Pick a face from a dead volume, pick four live voxels touching that face, and create a new "live" cube from the four new vertices and the four vertices from the dead shape. Go back to step 2.
5. If you can't find any face with four live voxels touching it, you're done.

Tweak to get desired results, but just in my head that sounds like it'd work.

Edit; oh, and without some assumptions, AFAIK you cannot devolve a 256x256x256 voxel map into a polygonal mass in realtime. That's up to 257x257x257*6 faces to generate, and the same number of tests to perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any reason why raycasting isnt a viable solution here?

In the medical imaging industry, raycasting is pretty much the defacto standard for realtime rendering of raw (unprocessed) 3D voxel volumes, although this may be because trasparency is quite often a requirement

(transparency pretty much falls right out of raycasting, requiring nothing special or time-consuming to implement)

Then there is marching cubes, which is now out of patent. Generating a simple model should be pretty fast, however the model wont be very optimal (many more triangles than necessary.)

The ideal structure (or companion) for marching cubes is almost certainly a binary quadtree or similar where you are certain to be able to skip very large chunks of the volume rather than iterating over all 24 million cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Wyrframeoh, and without some assumptions, AFAIK you cannot devolve a 256x256x256 voxel map into a polygonal mass in realtime. That's up to 257x257x257*6 faces to generate, and the same number of tests to perform.


Actually, I think you probably can do it in real time. I have an old project called 'VoxelStudio' which, as I recall, was able to do a 512x512x512 volume at about 1FPS. But you volume is about 1/8th the size, on modern hardware (mine was an AMD 1800 thing, maybe 4 years old now) and I know that my marching cubes algorithm was slower than it could have been.

See the project here: http://david-williams.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=34

I used an octree to quickly discard chucks of the volume and find the isosurface - you probably won't have this option and I don't recall how well it worked without it. Also I was using OpenGL immediate mode (no point building index/vertex buffers for one frame). I don't know where the bottleneck was - the speed of the marching cubes algorithm or the graphics card throughput (NVidia 6600 series I think).

However, I do work in medical visualization and in general would suggest you use raycasting or proxy geometry for the rendering of this kind of data set. These will probably be easier to implement, and you will also find it much easier to trade quality for performance if you need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for the responses

i misspoke, btw, about it being one solid figure -- it could be several

about raycasting or proxy geometry, i just don't know very much about this field. are those software or hardware solutions? when googling over this problem, i found out about the VolumePro, but it seems expensive and hard to get. i did find one on ebay for cheap, though..

i was thinking that raycasting wouldnt work because, since the voxels are just points, it wouldnt know the angle at any given point of the image so it couldn't do shading properly.. (but again i know nothing about this)

i really want at least 5 fps -- ideally 30 -- on an average pc, but maybe that's unrealistic

i can't really put any expensive hardware into it -- this isn't for professional purposes, just a little project. i could settle for a really slow framerate, though

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by inhahe
about raycasting or proxy geometry, i just don't know very much about this field. are those software or hardware solutions? when googling over this problem, i found out about the VolumePro, but it seems expensive and hard to get. i did find one on ebay for cheap, though..


I believe the VolumePro is pretty old technology - I don't think it will have anything to offer over a recent GPU.

Of the techniques I mentioned, proxy geometry will probably be the easiest approach to implement on a GPU, and raycasting will be easiest on a CPU. The problem you will encounter in a GPU implementation is the huge amount of data - it will be harsd to upload it fast enough and compression on the graphics card won't be as easy as on the CPU.

Now that I know you don't actually have to generate a mesh, my gut instinct would be to go for a CPU raycasting solution.

Quote:
Original post by inhahe
i was thinking that raycasting wouldnt work because, since the voxels are just points, it wouldnt know the angle at any given point of the image so it couldn't do shading properly.. (but again i know nothing about this)


Doesn't matter, you can simply use linear interpolation to get a value at any point in the volume. Search for 'central difference' to find info on gradient computation.

Quote:
Original post by inhahe
i really want at least 5 fps -- ideally 30 -- on an average pc, but maybe that's unrealistic


Should be ok... I reckon you should get 10-15 FPS. Referring back to my project in the previous post, if you download it it comes with a 256^3 volume and one of the renderers is a software raycaster. You'll have to manage without the octree I used, but actually I don't think it helped that much on a small dataset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by inhahe
i was thinking that raycasting wouldnt work because, since the voxels are just points, it wouldnt know the angle at any given point of the image so it couldn't do shading properly.. (but again i know nothing about this)


Voxels are not points, they are volumes! Voxel is short for Volume Pixel.

If you dont want your individual voxels to be rendered as cubes, then you will need to make some assumptions about the surface being approximated and then fake it, because your data simply doesn't cover broad surface properties. This is true regardless of your rendering method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i called them points because i won't be rendering them as cubes anyway given that my voxels are the same size as my pixels -- and because, since i know my data isn't actually about a structure made of cubes, it makes sense to treat them conceptually/mathematically as data points.. i think 'volumetric pixel' is somewhat of a misnomer for any application but a 3-d monitor.

to PolyVox: i looked up central difference, seems to be basically a derivative over data points--makes sense. but which order of derivative is usually used with volume rendering?

thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by inhahe
i called them points because i won't be rendering them as cubes anyway given that my voxels are the same size as my pixels -- and because, since i know my data isn't actually about a structure made of cubes, it makes sense to treat them conceptually/mathematically as data points.. i think 'volumetric pixel' is somewhat of a misnomer for any application but a 3-d monitor.
Voxels are an approximation of a real object, and that approximation is formed of small cubes - in the same way that pixels are an approximation of images, formed of small squares. It would be very unlikely that your object was indeed formed of cubes (unless it is Lego), just as I am not actually formed of squares (as my digital portrait would suggest).

As for regarding your data as points or cubes, it only makes sense to regard it as points if your object is sparse (i.e. mostly empty space) - points are a lousy approximation of solid objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by swiftcoder
Quote:
Original post by inhahe
i called them points because i won't be rendering them as cubes anyway given that my voxels are the same size as my pixels -- and because, since i know my data isn't actually about a structure made of cubes, it makes sense to treat them conceptually/mathematically as data points.. i think 'volumetric pixel' is somewhat of a misnomer for any application but a 3-d monitor.
Voxels are an approximation of a real object, and that approximation is formed of small cubes - in the same way that pixels are an approximation of images, formed of small squares. It would be very unlikely that your object was indeed formed of cubes (unless it is Lego), just as I am not actually formed of squares (as my digital portrait would suggest).

As for regarding your data as points or cubes, it only makes sense to regard it as points if your object is sparse (i.e. mostly empty space) - points are a lousy approximation of solid objects.


well i'm saying that i can't think of any reasonable way to interpret them as cubes. given that it's not actually made of cubes (and hence not to be interpreted it that way), regarding them as cubes is just extra complexity. the reason i say it's a misnomer for anything but a 3-d monitor is that pixels actually *are* squares, because that's how they're displayed (unless they were displayed via, say, sublimation printing). in voxel space, otoh, you're not actually treating them as cubes in any way, shape or form. i'm not sure what you meant about points being a lousy approximation for a shape, but another way of putting it is: say i have a smooth surface, and at regular intervals (voxel indices) i take samples. since informaiton of that sample's/voxel's exact position has been rounded/floored to the nearest integer (its voxel index), that voxel index might as well be considered a point, because that voxel's information, in itself, has no specific form information for any practical purpose or in relation to the original image (not counting its (int)'d voxel index). I suppose, though, that even though it's not quite a cube, it's not quite a point either, given that the actual position it represents is nebulous, while a point's is exact.

aynway i was looking a http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~hertleia/lab3.html, and it seems that 'central difference' is the least accurate way to take the gradiant. so i'm looking at romberg's algorithm now (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romberg's_method) and trying to determine if it applies to data points that are not derived from an equation..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Similar Content

    • By nOoNEE
      i am reading this book : link
      in the OpenGL Rendering Pipeline section there is a picture like this: link
      but the question is this i dont really understand why it is necessary to turn pixel data in to fragment and then fragment into pixel could please give me a source or a clear Explanation that why it is necessary ? thank you so mu
       
       
    • By Inbar_xz
      I'm using the OPENGL with eclipse+JOGL.
      My goal is to create movement of the camera and the player.
      I create main class, which create some box in 3D and hold 
      an object of PlayerAxis.
      I create PlayerAxis class which hold the axis of the player.
      If we want to move the camera, then in the main class I call to 
      the func "cameraMove"(from PlayerAxis) and it update the player axis.
      That's work good.
      The problem start if I move the camera on 2 axis, 
      for example if I move with the camera right(that's on the y axis)
      and then down(on the x axis) -
      in some point the move front is not to the front anymore..
      In order to move to the front, I do
      player.playerMoving(0, 0, 1);
      And I learn that in order to keep the front move, 
      I need to convert (0, 0, 1) to the player axis, and then add this.
      I think I dont do the convert right.. 
      I will be glad for help!

      Here is part of my PlayerAxis class:
       
      //player coordinate float x[] = new float[3]; float y[] = new float[3]; float z[] = new float[3]; public PlayerAxis(float move_step, float angle_move) { x[0] = 1; y[1] = 1; z[2] = -1; step = move_step; angle = angle_move; setTransMatrix(); } public void cameraMoving(float angle_step, String axis) { float[] new_x = x; float[] new_y = y; float[] new_z = z; float alfa = angle_step * angle; switch(axis) { case "x": new_z = addVectors(multScalar(z, COS(alfa)), multScalar(y, SIN(alfa))); new_y = subVectors(multScalar(y, COS(alfa)), multScalar(z, SIN(alfa))); break; case "y": new_x = addVectors(multScalar(x, COS(alfa)), multScalar(z, SIN(alfa))); new_z = subVectors(multScalar(z, COS(alfa)), multScalar(x, SIN(alfa))); break; case "z": new_x = addVectors(multScalar(x, COS(alfa)), multScalar(y, SIN(alfa))); new_y = subVectors(multScalar(y, COS(alfa)), multScalar(x, SIN(alfa))); } x = new_x; y = new_y; z = new_z; normalization(); } public void playerMoving(float x_move, float y_move, float z_move) { float[] move = new float[3]; move[0] = x_move; move[1] = y_move; move[2] = z_move; setTransMatrix(); float[] trans_move = transVector(move); position[0] = position[0] + step*trans_move[0]; position[1] = position[1] + step*trans_move[1]; position[2] = position[2] + step*trans_move[2]; } public void setTransMatrix() { for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { coordiTrans[0][i] = x[i]; coordiTrans[1][i] = y[i]; coordiTrans[2][i] = z[i]; } } public float[] transVector(float[] v) { return multiplyMatrixInVector(coordiTrans, v); }  
      and in the main class i have this:
       
      public void keyPressed(KeyEvent e) { if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_ESCAPE) { System.exit(0); //player move } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_W) { //front //moveAmount[2] += -0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, 0, 1); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_S) { //back //moveAmount[2] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, 0, -1); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_A) { //left //moveAmount[0] += -0.1f; player.playerMoving(-1, 0, 0); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_D) { //right //moveAmount[0] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(1, 0, 0); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_E) { //moveAmount[0] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, 1, 0); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_Q) { //moveAmount[0] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, -1, 0); //camera move } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_I) { //up player.cameraMoving(1, "x"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_K) { //down player.cameraMoving(-1, "x"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_L) { //right player.cameraMoving(-1, "y"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_J) { //left player.cameraMoving(1, "y"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_O) { //right round player.cameraMoving(-1, "z"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_U) { //left round player.cameraMoving(1, "z"); } }  
      finallt found it.... i confused with the transformation matrix row and col. thanks anyway!
    • By Lewa
      So, i'm currently trying to implement an SSAO shader from THIS tutorial and i'm running into a few issues here.
      Now, this SSAO method requires view space positions and normals. I'm storing the normals in my deferred renderer in world-space so i had to do a conversion and reconstruct the position from the depth buffer.
      And something there goes horribly wrong (which has probably to do with worldspace to viewspace transformations).
      (here is the full shader source code if someone wants to take a look at it)
      Now, i suspect that the normals are the culprit.
      vec3 normal = ((uNormalViewMatrix*vec4(normalize(texture2D(sNormals, vTexcoord).rgb),1.0)).xyz); "sNormals" is a 2D texture which stores the normals in world space in a RGB FP16 buffer.
      Now i can't use the camera viewspace matrix to transform the normals into viewspace as the cameras position isn't set at (0,0,0), thus skewing the result.
      So what i did is to create a new viewmatrix specifically for this normal without the position at vec3(0,0,0);
      //"camera" is the camera which was used for rendering the normal buffer renderer.setUniform4m(ressources->shaderSSAO->getUniform("uNormalViewMatrix"), glmExt::createViewMatrix(glm::vec3(0,0,0),camera.getForward(),camera.getUp())//parameters are (position,forwardVector,upVector) ); Though i have the feeling this is the wrong approach. Is this right or is there a better/correct way of transforming a world space normal into viewspace?
    • By HawkDeath
      Hi,
      I'm trying mix two textures using own shader system, but I have a problem (I think) with uniforms.
      Code: https://github.com/HawkDeath/shader/tree/test
      To debug I use RenderDocs, but I did not receive good results. In the first attachment is my result, in the second attachment is what should be.
      PS. I base on this tutorial https://learnopengl.com/Getting-started/Textures.


    • By norman784
      I'm having issues loading textures, as I'm clueless on how to handle / load images maybe I missing something, but the past few days I just google a lot to try to find a solution. Well theres two issues I think, one I'm using Kotlin Native (EAP) and OpenGL wrapper / STB image, so I'm not quite sure wheres the issue, if someone with more experience could give me some hints on how to solve this issue?
      The code is here, if I'm not mistaken the workflow is pretty straight forward, stbi_load returns the pixels of the image (as char array or byte array) and you need to pass those pixels directly to glTexImage2D, so a I'm missing something here it seems.
      Regards
    • By Hashbrown
      I've noticed in most post processing tutorials several shaders are used one after another: one for bloom, another for contrast, and so on. For example: 
      postprocessing.quad.bind() // Effect 1 effect1.shader.bind(); postprocessing.texture.bind(); postprocessing.quad.draw(); postprocessing.texture.unbind(); effect1.shader.unbind(); // Effect 2 effect2.shader.bind(); // ...and so on postprocessing.quad.unbind() Is this good practice, how many shaders can I bind and unbind before I hit performance issues? I'm afraid I don't know what the good practices are in open/webGL regarding binding and unbinding resources. 
      I'm guessing binding many shaders at post processing is okay since the scene has already been updated and I'm just working on a quad and texture at that moment. Or is it more optimal to put shader code in chunks and bind less frequently? I'd love to use several shaders at post though. 
      Another example of what I'm doing at the moment:
      1) Loop through GameObjects, bind its phong shader (send color, shadow, spec, normal samplers), unbind all.
      2) At post: bind post processor quad, and loop/bind through different shader effects, and so on ...
      Thanks all! 
    • By phil67rpg
      void collision(int v) { collision_bug_one(0.0f, 10.0f); glutPostRedisplay(); glutTimerFunc(1000, collision, 0); } void coll_sprite() { if (board[0][0] == 1) { collision(0); flag[0][0] = 1; } } void erase_sprite() { if (flag[0][0] == 1) { glColor3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glBegin(GL_POLYGON); glVertex3f(0.0f, 10.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 9.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 9.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 10.0f, 0.0f); glEnd(); } } I am using glutTimerFunc to wait a small amount of time to display a collision sprite before I black out the sprite. unfortunately my code only blacks out the said sprite without drawing the collision sprite, I have done a great deal of research on the glutTimerFunc and  animation.
    • By Lewa
      So, i stumbled upon the topic of gamma correction.
      https://learnopengl.com/Advanced-Lighting/Gamma-Correction
      So from what i've been able to gather: (Please correct me if i'm wrong)
      Old CRT monitors couldn't display color linearly, that's why gamma correction was nessecary. Modern LCD/LED monitors don't have this issue anymore but apply gamma correction anyway. (For compatibility reasons? Can this be disabled?) All games have to apply gamma correction? (unsure about that) All textures stored in file formats (.png for example) are essentially stored in SRGB color space (as what we see on the monitor is skewed due to gamma correction. So the pixel information is the same, the percieved colors are just wrong.) This makes textures loaded into the GL_RGB format non linear, thus all lighting calculations are wrong You have to always use the GL_SRGB format to gamma correct/linearise textures which are in SRGB format  
      Now, i'm kinda confused how to proceed with applying gamma correction in OpenGL.
      First of, how can i check if my Monitor is applying gamma correction? I noticed in my monitor settings that my color format is set to "RGB" (can't modify it though.) I'm connected to my PC via a HDMI cable. I'm also using the full RGB range (0-255, not the 16 to ~240 range)
       
      What i tried to do is to apply a gamma correction shader shown in the tutorial above which looks essentially like this: (it's a postprocess shader which is applied at the end of the renderpipeline)
      vec3 gammaCorrection(vec3 color){ // gamma correction color = pow(color, vec3(1.0/2.2)); return color; } void main() { vec3 color; vec3 tex = texture2D(texture_diffuse, vTexcoord).rgb; color = gammaCorrection(tex); outputF = vec4(color,1.0f); } The results look like this:
      No gamma correction:
      With gamma correction:
       
      The colors in the gamma corrected image look really wased out. (To the point that it's damn ugly. As if someone overlayed a white half transparent texture. I want the colors to pop.)
      Do i have to change the textures from GL_RGB to GL_SRGB in order to gamma correct them in addition to applying the post process gamma correction shader? Do i have to do the same thing with all FBOs? Or is this washed out look the intended behaviour?
    • By OneKaidou
      Hi
       
      I am trying to program shadow volumes and i stumbled upon an artifact which i can not find the cause for.
      I generate the shadow volumes using a geometry shader with reversed extrusion (projecting the lightfacing triangles to infinity) and write the stencil buffer according to z-fail. The base of my code is the "lighting" chapter from learnopengl.com, where i extended the shader class to include geometry shader. I also modified the "lightingshader" to draw the ambient pass when "pass" is set to true and the diffuse/ specular pass when set to false. For easier testing i added a view controls to switch on/off the shadow volumes' color rendering or to change the cubes' position, i made the lightnumber controllable and changed the diffuse pass to render green for easier visualization of my problem.
       
      The first picture shows the rendered scene for one point light, all cubes and the front cube's shadow volume is the only one created (intentional). Here, all is rendered as it should be with all lit areas green and all areas inside the shadow volume black (with the volume's sides blended over).

      If i now turn on the shadow volumes for all the other cubes, we get a bit of a mess, but its also obvious that some areas that were in shadow before are now erroneously lit (for example the first cube to the right from the originaly shadow volumed cube). From my testing the areas erroneously lit are the ones where more than one shadow volume marks the area as shadowed.

      To check if a wrong stencil buffer value caused this problem i decided to change the stencil function for the diffuse pass to only render if the stencil is equal to 2. As i repeated this approach with different values for the stencil function i found out that if i set the value equal to 1 or any other uneven value the lit and shadowed areas are inverted and if i set it to 0 or any other even value i get the results shown above.
      This lead me to believe that the value and thus the stencil buffer values may be clamped to [0,1] which would also explain the artifact, because twice in shadow would equal in no shadow at all, but from what i found on the internet and from what i tested with
      GLint stencilSize = 0; glGetFramebufferAttachmentParameteriv(GL_DRAW_FRAMEBUFFER, GL_STENCIL, GL_FRAMEBUFFER_ATTACHMENT_STENCIL_SIZE, &stencilSize); my stencilsize is 8 bit, which should be values within [0,255].
      Does anyone know what might be the cause for this artifact or the confusing results with other stencil functions?
       
      // [the following code includes all used gl* functions, other parts are due to readability partialy excluded] // glfw: initialize and configure // ------------------------------ glfwInit(); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MAJOR, 4); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MINOR, 4); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_PROFILE, GLFW_OPENGL_CORE_PROFILE); // glfw window creation // -------------------- GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(SCR_WIDTH, SCR_HEIGHT, "LearnOpenGL", NULL, NULL); if (window == NULL) { cout << "Failed to create GLFW window" << endl; glfwTerminate(); return -1; } glfwMakeContextCurrent(window); glfwSetFramebufferSizeCallback(window, framebuffer_size_callback); glfwSetCursorPosCallback(window, mouse_callback); glfwSetScrollCallback(window, scroll_callback); // tell GLFW to capture our mouse glfwSetInputMode(window, GLFW_CURSOR, GLFW_CURSOR_DISABLED); // glad: load all OpenGL function pointers // --------------------------------------- if (!gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress)) { cout << "Failed to initialize GLAD" << endl; return -1; } // ==================================================================================================== // window and functions are set up // ==================================================================================================== // configure global opengl state // ----------------------------- glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); glEnable(GL_CULL_FACE); // build and compile our shader program [...] // set up vertex data (and buffer(s)) and configure vertex attributes [...] // shader configuration [...] // render loop // =========== while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) { // input processing and fps calculation[...] // render // ------ glClearColor(0.1f, 0.1f, 0.1f, 1.0f); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); glDepthMask(GL_TRUE); //enable depth writing glDepthFunc(GL_LEQUAL); //avoid z-fighting //draw ambient component into color and depth buffer view = camera.GetViewMatrix(); projection = glm::perspective(glm::radians(camera.Zoom), (float)SCR_WIDTH / (float)SCR_HEIGHT, 0.1f, 100.0f); // setting up lighting shader for ambient pass [...] // render the cubes glBindVertexArray(cubeVAO); for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { //position cube [...] glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 36); } //------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ glDepthMask(GL_FALSE); //disable depth writing glEnable(GL_BLEND); glBlendFunc(GL_ONE, GL_ONE); //additive blending glEnable(GL_STENCIL_TEST); //setting up shadowShader and lightingShader [...] for (int light = 0; light < lightsused; light++) { glDepthFunc(GL_LESS); glClear(GL_STENCIL_BUFFER_BIT); //configure stencil ops for front- and backface to write according to z-fail glStencilOpSeparate(GL_FRONT, GL_KEEP, GL_DECR_WRAP, GL_KEEP); //-1 for front-facing glStencilOpSeparate(GL_BACK, GL_KEEP, GL_INCR_WRAP, GL_KEEP); //+1 for back-facing glStencilFunc(GL_ALWAYS, 0, GL_TRUE); //stencil test always passes if(hidevolumes) glColorMask(GL_FALSE, GL_FALSE, GL_FALSE, GL_FALSE); //disable writing to the color buffer glDisable(GL_CULL_FACE); glEnable(GL_DEPTH_CLAMP); //necessary to render SVs into infinity //draw SV------------------- shadowShader.use(); shadowShader.setInt("lightnr", light); int nr; if (onecaster) nr = 1; else nr = 10; for (int i = 0; i < nr; i++) { //position cube[...] glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 36); } //-------------------------- glDisable(GL_DEPTH_CLAMP); glEnable(GL_CULL_FACE); glStencilFunc(GL_EQUAL, 0, GL_TRUE); //stencil test passes for ==0 so only for non shadowed areas glStencilOp(GL_KEEP, GL_KEEP, GL_KEEP); //keep stencil values for illumination glColorMask(GL_TRUE, GL_TRUE, GL_TRUE, GL_TRUE); //enable writing to the color buffer glDepthFunc(GL_LEQUAL); //avoid z-fighting //draw diffuse and specular pass lightingShader.use(); lightingShader.setInt("lightnr", light); // render the cubes for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { //position cube[...] glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 36); } } glDisable(GL_BLEND); glDepthMask(GL_TRUE); //enable depth writing glDisable(GL_STENCIL_TEST); //------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ // also draw the lamp object(s) [...] // glfw: swap buffers and poll IO events (keys pressed/released, mouse moved etc.) // ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- glfwSwapBuffers(window); glfwP } // optional: de-allocate all resources once they've outlived their purpose: // ------------------------------------------------------------------------ glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &cubeVAO); glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &lightVAO); glDeleteBuffers(1, &VBO); // glfw: terminate, clearing all previously allocated GLFW resources. // ------------------------------------------------------------------ glfwTerminate(); return 0;  
    • By Green_Baron
      Hi,
      i am self teaching me graphics and oo programming and came upon this:
      My Window class creates an input handler instance, the glfw user pointer is redirected to that object and methods there do the input handling for keyboard and mouse. That works. Now as part of the input handling i have an orbiting camera that is controlled by mouse movement. GLFW_CURSOR_DISABLED is set as proposed in the glfw manual. The manual says that in this case the cursor is automagically reset to the window's center. But if i don't reset it manually with glfwSetCursorPos( center ) mouse values seem to add up until the scene is locked up.
      Here are some code snippets, mostly standard from tutorials:
      // EventHandler m_eventHandler = new EventHandler( this, glm::vec3( 0.0f, 5.0f, 0.0f ), glm::vec3( 0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f ) ); glfwSetWindowUserPointer( m_window, m_eventHandler ); m_eventHandler->setCallbacks(); Creation of the input handler during window creation. For now, the camera is part of the input handler, hence the two vectors (position, up-vector).  In future i'll take that functionally out into an own class that inherits from the event handler.
      void EventHandler::setCallbacks() { glfwSetCursorPosCallback( m_window->getWindow(), cursorPosCallback ); glfwSetKeyCallback( m_window->getWindow(), keyCallback ); glfwSetScrollCallback( m_window->getWindow(), scrollCallback ); glfwSetMouseButtonCallback( m_window->getWindow(), mouseButtonCallback ); } Set callbacks in the input handler.
      // static void EventHandler::cursorPosCallback( GLFWwindow *w, double x, double y ) { EventHandler *c = reinterpret_cast<EventHandler *>( glfwGetWindowUserPointer( w ) ); c->onMouseMove( (float)x, (float)y ); } Example for the cursor pos callback redirection to a class method.
      // virtual void EventHandler::onMouseMove( float x, float y ) { if( x != 0 || y != 0 ) { // @todo cursor should be set automatically, according to doc if( m_window->isCursorDisabled() ) glfwSetCursorPos( m_window->getWindow(), m_center.x, m_center.y ); // switch up/down because its more intuitive m_yaw += m_mouseSensitivity * ( m_center.x - x ); m_pitch += m_mouseSensitivity * ( m_center.y - y ); // to avoid locking if( m_pitch > 89.0f ) m_pitch = 89.0f; if( m_pitch < -89.0f ) m_pitch = -89.0f; // Update Front, Right and Up Vectors updateCameraVectors(); } } // onMouseMove() Mouse movement processor method. The interesting part is the manual reset of the mouse position that made the thing work ...
      // straight line distance between the camera and look at point, here (0,0,0) float distance = glm::length( m_target - m_position ); // Calculate the camera position using the distance and angles float camX = distance * -std::sin( glm::radians( m_yaw ) ) * std::cos( glm::radians( m_pitch) ); float camY = distance * -std::sin( glm::radians( m_pitch) ); float camZ = -distance * std::cos( glm::radians( m_yaw ) ) * std::cos( glm::radians( m_pitch) ); // Set the camera position and perspective vectors m_position = glm::vec3( camX, camY, camZ ); m_front = glm::vec3( 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ) - m_position; m_up = m_worldUp; m_right = glm::normalize( glm::cross( m_front, m_worldUp ) ); glm::lookAt( m_position, m_front, m_up ); Orbiting camera vectors calculation in updateCameraVectors().
      Now, for my understanding, as the glfw manual explicitly states that if cursor is disabled then it is reset to the center, but my code only works if it is reset manually, i fear i am doing something wrong. It is not world moving (only if there is a world to render :-)), but somehow i am curious what i am missing.
       
      I am not a professional programmer, just a hobbyist, so it may well be that i got something principally wrong :-)
      And thanks for any hints and so ...
       
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      631359
    • Total Posts
      2999539
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!