I am trying to use TOPAS to create a geometric system that is a hollow sphere scorer around a point radiation source in a water world.
I have gotten everything to work, except the sphere is solid.
I have looked at the TOPAS documentation/Manual and I see there are examples for making a TsSphere (which is what I initually used), and for G4HPolycone which generates a hollow polycone and you can define the inner and outer dimensions.
I experimented a bit with terms like "G4HSphere" and "TsHSphere" on the off chance it just wasn't mentioned in that specific document (with RInner and ROuter defined as 9.5 and 10.5 respectively) but neither of those terms worked and resulted in termination of the code.
Any insight for how to make a hollow sphere is much appreciated :)
I figured it out - TsSphere still works, but adding the variables Rmin and Rmax then allows you to make that sphere hollow :)
Related
I am trying to draw a concave circle, e.g. something like a soup bowl to form the "pips" on a die in a Yahtzee like program I am working on using C#.
It seems to me that in graphics "concave" has a different, and quite complex, meaning to what I am trying to achieve - the opposite of convex.
I can draw quite a realistic ball using a PathGradientBrush with white at a position one third of the way across and one third down and SurroundColors of the ball colour and I had hoped by moving the white spot to two thirds across and down I might get what I want but sadly not.
Can anybody give me a steer please? Even a pointer to what might be better search term would be a good start.
Many thanks.
Let's say I've got a rgba texture, and a polygon class , which constructor takes vector array of verticies coordinates.
Is there some way to create a polygon of this texture, for example, using alpha channel of the texture ...?
in 2d
Absolutely, yes it can be done. Is it easy? No. I haven't seen any game/geometry engines that would help you out too much either. Doing it yourself, the biggest problem you're going to have is generating a simplified mesh. One quad per pixel is going to generate a lot of geometry very quickly. Holes in the geometry may be an issue if you're tracing the edges and triangulating afterwards. Then there's the issue of determining what's in and what's out. Alpha is the obvious candidate, but unless you're looking at either full-on or full-off, you may be thinking about nice smooth edges. That's going to be hard to get right and would probably involve some kind of marching squares over the interpolated alpha. So while it's not impossible, its a lot of work.
Edit: As pointed out below, Unity does provide a method of generating a polygon from the alpha of a sprite - a PolygonCollider2D. In the script reference for it, it mentions the pathCount variable which describes the number of polygons it contains, which in describes which indexes are valid for the GetPath method. So this method could be used to generate polygons from alpha. It does rely on using Unity however. But with the combination of the sprite alpha for controlling what is drawn, and the collider controlling intersections with other objects, it covers a lot of use cases. This doesn't mean it's appropriate for your application.
I am looking for an algorithm that given two meshes could clip one using another.
The simplest form of this is clipping a mesh using a plane. I've already implemented that by following something similar to what is described here.
What it does is basically inspecting all mesh vertices and triangles with respect to the plane (the plane's normal and point are given). If the triangle is completely above the plane, it is left untouched. If it falls completely below the plane, it is discarded. If some of the edges of the triangle intersect with the plane, the intersecting points with the plane are calculated and added as the new vertices. Finally a cap is generated for the hole on the place the mesh was cut.
The problem is that the algorithm assumes that the plane is unlimited, therefore whatever is in its path is clipped. In the simplest form, I need an extension of this without the assumption of a plane of "infinite" size.
To clarify, imagine that we have a 3D model of a desk with 2 boxes on it. The boxes are adjacent (but not touching or stacked). The user will define a cutting plane of a limited width and height underneath the first box and performs the cut. We end up with a desk model (mesh) with a box on it and another box (mesh) that can be freely moved around/manipulated.
In the general form, I'd like the user to be able to define a bounding box for the box he/she wants to separate from the desk model and perform the cut using that bounding box.
If I could extend the algorithm I already have to an algorithm with limited-sized planes, that would be great for now.
What you're looking for are constructive solid geometry/boolean algorithms with arbitrary meshes. It's considerably more complex than slicing meshes by an infinite plane.
Among the earliest and simplest research in this area, and a good starting point, is Constructive Solid Geometry for Polyhedral Objects by Trumbore and Hughes.
http://cs.brown.edu/~jfh/papers/Laidlaw-CSG-1986/main.htm
From the original paper:
More elaborate solutions extend upon this subject with a variety of data structures.
The real complexity of the operation lies in the slicing algorithm to slice one triangle against another. The nightmare of implementing robust CSG lies in numerical precision. It's easy when you involve objects far more complex than a cube to run into cases where a slice is made just barely next to a vertex (at which point you have the tough decision of merging the new split vertex or not prior to carrying out more splits), where polygons are coplanar (or almost), etc.
So I suggest initially erring on the side of using very high-precision floating point numbers, possibly even higher than double precision to focus on getting something working correctly and robustly. You can optimize later (first pass should be to use an accelerator like an octree/kd-tree/bvh), but you'll avoid many headaches this way in your first iteration.
This is vastly simpler to implement at render time if you're focusing on a raytracer rather than a modeling software, e.g. With raytracers, all you have to do to do this kind of arbitrary clipping is pretend that an object used to subtract from another has its polygons flipped in the culling process, e.g. It's easy to solve robustly at the ray level, but quite a bit harder to do robustly at the geometric level.
Another thing you can do to make your life so much easier if you can afford it is to voxelize your object, find subtractions/additions/unions of voxels, and then translate the voxels back into a mesh. This is so much easier to make robust, but harder to do efficiently and the voxel->polygon conversion can get quite involved if you want better results than what marching cubes provide.
It's a really tough area to do extremely well and requires perseverance, and thus the reason for the existence of things like this: http://carve-csg.com/about.
If someone is interested, currently there is a solution for this problem in CGAL library. It allows clipping one triangular mesh using another mesh as bounding volume. The usage example can be found here.
I am using Java to write a very primitive 3D graphics engine based on The Black Art of 3D Game Programming from 1995. I have gotten to the point where I can draw single color polygons to the screen and move the camera around the "scene". I even have a Z buffer that handles translucent objects properly by sorting those pixels by Z, as long as I don't show too many translucent pixels at once. I am at the point where I want to add lighting. I want to keep it simple, and ambient light seems simple enough, directional light should be fairly simple too. But I really want point lighting with the ability to move the light source around and cast very primitive shadows ( mostly I don't want light shining through walls ).
My problem is that I don't know the best way to approach this. I imagine a point light source casting rays at regular angles, and if these rays intersect a polygon it will light that polygon and stop moving forward. However when I think about a scene with multiple light sources and multiple polygons with all those rays I imagine it will get very slow. I also don't know how to handle a case where a polygon is far enough away from a light source that if falls in between two rays. I would give each light source a maximum distance, and if I gave it enough rays, then there should be no point within that distance that any two rays are too far apart to miss a polygon, but that only increases my problem with the number of calculations to perform.
My question to you is: Is there some trick to point light sources to speed them up or just to organize it better? I'm afraid I'll just get a nightmare of nested for loops. I can't use openGL or Direct3D or any other cheats because I want to write my own.
If you want to see my results so far, here is a youtube video. I have already fixed the bad camera rotation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XYj113Le58&feature=plcp
Lighting for real time 3d applications is (or rather - has in the past generally been) done by very simple approximations - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shading. Shadows are expensive - and have generally in rasterizing 3d engines been accomplished via shadow maps & Shadow Volumes. Point lights make shadows even more expensive.
Dynamic real time light sources have only recently become a common feature in games - simply because they place such a heavy burden on the rendering system. And these games leverage dedicated graphics cards. So I think you may struggle to get good performance out of your engine if you decide to include dynamic - shadow casting - point lights.
Today it is commonplace for lighting to be applied in two ways:
Traditionally this has been "forward rendering". In this method, for every vertex (if you are doing the lighting per vertex) or fragment (if you are doing it per-pixel) you would calculate the contribution of each light source.
More recently, "deferred" lighting has become popular, wherein the geometry and extra data like normals & colour info are all rendered to intermediate buffers - which is then used to calculate lighting contributions. This way, the lighting calculations are not dependent on the geometry count. It does however, have a lot of other overhead.
There are a lot of options. Implementing anything much more complex than some the basic models that have been used by dedicated graphics cards over the past couple of years is going to be challenging, however!
My suggestion would be to start out with something simple - basic lighting without shadows. From there you can extend and optimize.
What are you doing the ray-triangle intersection test for? Are you trying to light only triangles which the light would reach? Ray-triangle
intersections for every light with every poly is going to be very expensive I think. For lighting without shadows, typically you would
just iterate through every face (or if you are doing it per vertex, through every vertex) and calculate & add the lighting contribution per light - you would do this just before you start rasterizing as you have to pass through all polys in anycase.
You can calculate the lighting by making use of any illumination model, something very simple like Lambertian reflectance - which shades the surface based upon the dot product of the normal of the surface and the direction vector from the surface to the light. Make sure your vectors are in the same spaces! This is possibly why you are getting the strange results that you are. If your surface normal is in world space, be sure to calculate the world space light vector. There are a bunch of advantages for calulating lighting in certain spaces, you can have a look at that later on, for now I suggest you just get the basics up and running. Also have a look at Blinn-phong - this is the shading model graphics cards used for many years.
For lighting with shadows - look into the links I posted. They were developed because realistic lighting is so expensive to calculate.
By the way, LaMothe had a follow up book called Tricks of the 3D Game Programming Gurus-Advanced 3D Graphics and Rasterization.
This takes you through every step of programming a 3d engine. I am not sure what the black art book covers.
So, I'm currently developing a puzzle game of sorts, and I came upon something I'm not sure how to approach.
As you can see from the screenshot below, the text on the sides next to the main square is distorted along the diagonal of the quadrilateral. This is because this is not a screenshot of a 3D environment, but rather a 2D environment where the squares have been stretched in such a way that it looks like it's 3D.
I have tried using 3D perspective and changing depths, and while it solves the issue of the distorted sides, I was wondering if it's possible to fix this issue without doing 3D perspectives. Mainly because the current mesh transformation scheme took a while to get to, and converting that to something that works on 3D space is extra effort that might be avoidable.
I have a feeling this is unavoidable, but I'm curious if anyone knows a solution. I'm currently using OpenGL ES 1.
Probably not the answer you wanted, but I'd go with the 3d transformation because it will save you not only this distortion, but will simplify many other things down the road and give you opportunities to do nice effects.
What you are lacking in this scene is "perspective-correct interpolation", which is slightly non-linear, and is done automatically when you provide coordinates with depth information.
It may be possible to emulate it another way (though your options are limited since you do not have shaders available) but they will all likely be less efficient than using the dedicated functionality of your GPU. I recommend that you switch to using 3D coordinates.
Actually, I just found the answer. Turns out there's a Q coordinate which you can use to play around with trapezoidal texture distortion:
texture mapping a trapezoid with a square texture in OpenGL
http://www.xyzw.us/~cass/qcoord/
http://hacksoflife.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/perspective-correct-texturing-in-opengl.html
Looks like it won't be as correct as doing it 3D, but I suppose it will be easier for my use right now.