# OpenGL OpenGL / HUD - Computation of a good initial value for scale line

## Recommended Posts

youpi1    124
I try to find the good initial value at the start of simulation. I took on the following image a value equal to 100 kpc (kpc is the unity used in my code for the positions of each particles) Edited by youpi1

##### Share on other sites
L. Spiro    25622

Firstly, the main problem is that you are using a perspective transform instead of an orthogonal transform.  In a perspective transform, only the particles with exactly the correct Z distances will be scaled correctly according your scale.

The first fix is to use an orthogonal transform.

Once that is done you will probably notice that everything gets small.

That is because now one pixel = one unit.

So if a particle has traveled 100 pixels on the screen it is trivial to calculate how many world units that means.  And the inverse of such operation (taking 100 world units and showing that as pixels on a graph/bar) is also trivial.

I leave this up to the reader who shows some self-help efforts.

L. Spiro

Edited by L. Spiro

##### Share on other sites
youpi1    124

I don't understand why I have to use Ortho projection, Perspective allows me to make diplay  particles smaller/bigger when they get far away/closer (with zoom out/in that I have implemented) while Ortho is for 2D stuff.

##### Share on other sites
wintertime    4108

Well on that example picture you are watching the galaxy (which is very flat) from a much higher distance from far above it, so you gain not very much from perspective transform, but that distance-meter only works on 1 distance and is difficult to calculate correctly.

If you need to watch it from the side and at much lower distance the distance meter gets useless as the user cannot know if it applies to foreground or background objects for which it would have to be different. So you have to decide whats more important to your users, a useful distance meter with ortho or correct perspective drawing for minimally better visualization.

##### Share on other sites
youpi1    124
I am not sure I have all understood. There are 2 things :

- the line I draw is done in "headupdisplay" function by :

//Setup for 2D
glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION);
glPushMatrix();
glOrtho(0, w_width, w_height, 0, -1, 1);
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glPushMatrix();
// begin draw scale line
glDisable(GL_TEXTURE_2D);
glLineWidth(2.0f);
glBegin(GL_LINES);
glVertex2d(350, 12);
glVertex2d(450, 12);
glVertex2d(350, 9);
glVertex2d(350, 15);
glVertex2d(450, 9);
glVertex2d(450, 15);
glEnd();
glEnable(GL_TEXTURE_2D);
// end draw
glMatrixMode( GL_PROJECTION );
glPopMatrix();
glMatrixMode( GL_MODELVIEW );
glPopMatrix();
// end for 2D

So, this line has 100 pixel length.

- I want the value right to this line to represent the distance of the foreground plane, i.e the 2D projection of the 3D scene.

For example, I show you the result when I zoom (the value equals to 45.8 kpc) :

[attachment=13275:test3.png]

Now another picture with the same zoom but with also a rotation by mouse, this is a view by side of the galaxy :

[attachment=13276:test4.png]

wintertime, you say this distance is difficult to calculate correctly with perspective projection, could you give me some clue ?

I just want to get a value corresponding to the foreground objects, i.e the 2D projection in (xy) plane of the 3D scene without taking into account of the z coordinates. That's why you advise me to use Ortho projection ?

Thanks Edited by youpi1

##### Share on other sites
wintertime    4108

Perspective projection is like watching a pyramid from above its tip and the further away the wider it gets. Its impossible to give one number for how wide it is without a distance.

Orthographic projection is like looking at a box, its got same width everywhere. Its easy to give one number then and you can also just use the same projection for the graphics and the measuring line so its got same unit length.

##### Share on other sites
youpi1    124
Its impossible to give one number for how wide it is without a distance.

So when I do :

gluPerspective(45.0f, (float)w_width / w_height, g_nearPlane, g_farPlane);"
gluLookAt (0.0, 0.0, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0);

I can't say that the width and height are equals to : width = height = 2 *tan(45) * distance ;  with distance = 3 ?

## Create an account

Register a new account

• ### Similar Content

• Hello. I'm Programmer who is in search of 2D game project who preferably uses OpenGL and C++. You can see my projects in GitHub. Project genre doesn't matter (except MMO's :D).

• Hello, My name is Matt. I am a programmer. I mostly use Java, but can use C++ and various other languages. I'm looking for someone to partner up with for random projects, preferably using OpenGL, though I'd be open to just about anything. If you're interested you can contact me on Skype or on here, thank you!
Skype: Mangodoor408
• By tyhender
Hello, my name is Mark. I'm hobby programmer.
So recently,I thought that it's good idea to find people to create a full 3D engine. I'm looking for people experienced in scripting 3D shaders and implementing physics into engine(game)(we are going to use the React physics engine).
And,ye,no money =D I'm just looking for hobbyists that will be proud of their work. If engine(or game) will have financial succes,well,then maybe =D
Sorry for late replies.
I mostly give more information when people PM me,but this post is REALLY short,even for me =D
So here's few more points:
Engine will use openGL and SDL for graphics. It will use React3D physics library for physics simulation. Engine(most probably,atleast for the first part) won't have graphical fron-end,it will be a framework . I think final engine should be enough to set up an FPS in a couple of minutes. A bit about my self:
I've been programming for 7 years total. I learned very slowly it as "secondary interesting thing" for like 3 years, but then began to script more seriously.  My primary language is C++,which we are going to use for the engine. Yes,I did 3D graphics with physics simulation before. No, my portfolio isn't very impressive. I'm working on that No,I wasn't employed officially. If anybody need to know more PM me.

• By Zaphyk
I am developing my engine using the OpenGL 3.3 compatibility profile. It runs as expected on my NVIDIA card and on my Intel Card however when I tried it on an AMD setup it ran 3 times worse than on the other setups. Could this be a AMD driver thing or is this probably a problem with my OGL code? Could a different code standard create such bad performance?

• I'm trying to get some legacy OpenGL code to run with a shader pipeline,
The legacy code uses glVertexPointer(), glColorPointer(), glNormalPointer() and glTexCoordPointer() to supply the vertex information.
I know that it should be using setVertexAttribPointer() etc to clearly define the layout but that is not an option right now since the legacy code can't be modified to that extent.
I've got a version 330 vertex shader to somewhat work:
#version 330 uniform mat4 osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix; uniform mat4 osg_ModelViewMatrix; layout(location = 0) in vec4 Vertex; layout(location = 2) in vec4 Normal; // Velocity layout(location = 3) in vec3 TexCoord; // TODO: is this the right layout location? out VertexData { vec4 color; vec3 velocity; float size; } VertexOut; void main(void) { vec4 p0 = Vertex; vec4 p1 = Vertex + vec4(Normal.x, Normal.y, Normal.z, 0.0f); vec3 velocity = (osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * p1 - osg_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * p0).xyz; VertexOut.velocity = velocity; VertexOut.size = TexCoord.y; gl_Position = osg_ModelViewMatrix * Vertex; } What works is the Vertex and Normal information that the legacy C++ OpenGL code seem to provide in layout location 0 and 2. This is fine.
What I'm not getting to work is the TexCoord information that is supplied by a glTexCoordPointer() call in C++.
Question:
What layout location is the old standard pipeline using for glTexCoordPointer()? Or is this undefined?

Side note: I'm trying to get an OpenSceneGraph 3.4.0 particle system to use custom vertex, geometry and fragment shaders for rendering the particles.

• 11
• 19
• 26
• 16
• 19