Currently developing an augmented reality application and I need to change the size of my objects using pinch zoom. Found the code below on the net but it is not working. After adding the script, my object went missing and whenever I pinch it, it just appears and then it goes missing again. And it is very small like only a dot in the screen. What is the possible reason? Thanks!
public static GameObject selectedObject;
//public GameObject gameobject;
// Update is called once per frame
void Update () {
if ( Input.touchCount == 0 )
{
Touch touch = Input.touches[0];
Ray ray = Camera.main.ScreenPointToRay(touch.position);
RaycastHit hit;
if ( Physics.Raycast(ray, out hit, 100f ) )
{
selectedObject = hit.collider.gameObject;
}
}
if (Input.touchCount == 2)
{
// Store both touches.
Touch touchZero = Input.GetTouch(0);
Touch touchOne = Input.GetTouch(1);
// Find the position in the previous frame of each touch.
Vector2 touchZeroPrevPos = touchZero.position - touchZero.deltaPosition;
Vector2 touchOnePrevPos = touchOne.position - touchOne.deltaPosition;
// Find the magnitude of the vector (the distance) between the touches in each frame.
float prevTouchDeltaMag = (touchZeroPrevPos - touchOnePrevPos).magnitude;
float touchDeltaMag = (touchZero.position - touchOne.position).magnitude;
// Find the difference in the distances between each frame.
float deltaMagnitudeDiff = prevTouchDeltaMag - touchDeltaMag;
selectedObject.transform.localScale = new Vector3(deltaMagnitudeDiff , deltaMagnitudeDiff , deltaMagnitudeDiff);
}
}
The issue with setting local scale using a delta is that you aren't changing the scale of the object in the way you believe you are. You're setting the scale to the delta in each axis, which may be a very very small number.
The reason why your object would disappear when the user was not scaling the object was because during that time, the value of deltaMagnitudeDiff was 0, so you were scaling your box by a factor of 0 in every direction (which shrinks it to a single point, its location). When a user was scaling the box, the box would only be as large as deltaMagnitudeDiff. So, moving your fingers faster would probably make the box appear larger than moving your fasters slowly. Once the user stopped scaling, deltaMagnitudeDiff would again be 0, since the position of the user's fingers were not scaling.
You should add your deltaMagnitudeDiff to the current local scale of the object.
Here is a modification of the last two lines of your Update() method, including the comment directly above the second to last line:
// Find the difference in distances between each frame.
float deltaMagnitudeDiff = prevTouchDeltaMag - touchDeltaMag;
Vector3 newScale = selectedObject.transform.localScale - new Vector3(deltaMagnitudeDiff, deltaMagnitudeDiff, deltaMagnitudeDiff);
selectedObject.transform.localScale = newScale;
Final script:
public static GameObject selectedObject;
//public GameObject gameobject;
// Update is called once per frame
void Update () {
if ( Input.touchCount == 0 )
{
Touch touch = Input.touches[0];
Ray ray = Camera.main.ScreenPointToRay(touch.position);
RaycastHit hit;
if ( Physics.Raycast(ray, out hit, 100f ) )
{
selectedObject = hit.collider.gameObject;
}
}
if (Input.touchCount == 2)
{
// Store both touches.
Touch touchZero = Input.GetTouch(0);
Touch touchOne = Input.GetTouch(1);
// Find the position in the previous frame of each touch.
Vector2 touchZeroPrevPos = touchZero.position - touchZero.deltaPosition;
Vector2 touchOnePrevPos = touchOne.position - touchOne.deltaPosition;
// Find the magnitude of the vector (the distance) between the touches in each frame.
float prevTouchDeltaMag = (touchZeroPrevPos - touchOnePrevPos).magnitude;
float touchDeltaMag = (touchZero.position - touchOne.position).magnitude;
// Find the difference in distances between each frame.
float deltaMagnitudeDiff = prevTouchDeltaMag - touchDeltaMag;
Vector3 newScale = selectedObject.transform.localScale - new Vector3(deltaMagnitudeDiff, deltaMagnitudeDiff, deltaMagnitudeDiff);
selectedObject.transform.localScale = newScale;
}
}
Related
I am writing a spatial shader in godot to pixelate an object.
Previously, I tried to write outside of an object, however that is only possible in CanvasItem shaders, and now I am going back to 3D shaders due rendering annoyances (I am unable to selectively hide items without using the culling mask, which being limited to 20 layers is not an extensible solution.)
My naive approach:
Define a pixel "cell" resolution (ie. 3x3 real pixels)
For each fragment:
If the entire "cell" of real pixels is within the models draw bounds, color the current pixel as per the lower-left (where the pixel that has coordinates that are the multiple of the cell resolution).
If any pixel of the current "cell" is out of the draw bounds, set alpha to 1 to erase the entire cell.
psuedo-code for people asking for code of the likely non-existant functionality that I am seeking:
int cell_size = 3;
fragment {
// check within a cell to see if all pixels are part of the object being drawn to
for (int y = 0; y < cell_size; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < cell_size; x++) {
int erase_pixel = 0;
if ( uv_in_model(vec2(FRAGCOORD.x - (FRAGCOORD.x % x), FRAGCOORD.y - (FRAGCOORD.y % y))) == false) {
int erase_pixel = 1;
}
}
}
albedo.a = erase_pixel
}
tl;dr, is it possible to know if any given point will be called by the fragment function?
On your object's material there should be a property called Next Pass. Add a new Spatial Material in this section, open up flags and check transparent and unshaded, and then right-click it to bring up the option to convert it to a Shader Material.
Now, open up the new Shader Material's Shader. The last process should have created a Shader formatted with a fragment() function containing the line vec4 albedo_tex = texture(texture_albedo, base_uv);
In this line, you can replace "texture_albedo" with "SCREEN_TEXTURE" and "base_uv" with "SCREEN_UV". This should make the new shader look like nothing has changed, because the next pass material is just sampling the screen from the last pass.
Above that, make a variable called something along the lines of "pixelated" and set it to the following expression:
vec2 pixelated = floor(SCREEN_UV * scale) / scale; where scale is a float or vec2 containing the pixel size. Finally replace SCREEN_UV in the albedo_tex definition with pixelated.
After this, you can have a float depth which samples DEPTH_TEXTURE with pixelated like this:
float depth = texture(DEPTH_TEXTURE, pixelated).r;
This depth value will be very large for pixels that are just trying to render the background onto your object. So, add a conditional statement:
if (depth > 100000.0f) { ALPHA = 0.0f; }
As long as the flags on this new next pass shader were set correctly (transparent and unshaded) you should have a quick-and-dirty pixelator. I say this because it has some minor artifacts around the edges, but you can make scale a uniform variable and set it from the editor and scripts, so I think it works nicely.
"Testing if a pixel is modifiable" in your case means testing if the object should be rendering it at all with that depth conditional.
Here's the full shader with my modifications from the comments
// NOTE: Shader automatically converted from Godot Engine 3.4.stable's SpatialMaterial.
shader_type spatial;
render_mode blend_mix,depth_draw_opaque,cull_back,unshaded;
//the size of pixelated blocks on the screen relative to pixels
uniform int scale;
void vertex() {
}
//vec2 representation of one used for calculation
const vec2 one = vec2(1.0f, 1.0f);
void fragment() {
//scale SCREEN_UV up to the size of the viewport over the pixelation scale
//assure scale is a multiple of 2 to avoid artefacts
vec2 pixel_scale = VIEWPORT_SIZE / float(scale * 2);
vec2 pixelated = SCREEN_UV * pixel_scale;
//truncate the decimal place from the pixelated uvs and then shift them over by half a pixel
pixelated = pixelated - mod(pixelated, one) + one / 2.0f;
//scale the pixelated uvs back down to the screen
pixelated /= pixel_scale;
vec4 albedo_tex = texture(SCREEN_TEXTURE,pixelated);
ALBEDO = albedo_tex.rgb;
ALPHA = 1.0f;
float depth = texture(DEPTH_TEXTURE, pixelated).r;
if (depth > 10000.0f)
{
ALPHA = 0.0f;
}
}
I am using PCL viewer (which uses VTK) for visualizing a 3D point cloud generated by SLAM algorithm. I am trying to render the view of point cloud as seen by the robot at a given pose (position and orientation). I am able to set the position and ViewUp vector of the camera, but I am unable to set the Focal point of the camera to the heading of the robot. Currently, I am using sliders to set the Focal Point, but I want to set it programmatically based on the heading.
I am trying understand the type (angle in rad / distance in m) and range of values VTKCamera Focal Point expects and how that's related to the heading.
Function where I am updating camera
void Widget::setcamView(){
//transfrom position
Eigen::Vector3d position = this->transformpose(Eigen::Vector3d(image_pose.at(pose_ittr).position[0], image_pose.at(pose_ittr).position[1], image_pose.at(pose_ittr).position[2]));
posx = position(0);
posy = position(1);
posz = position(2);
//transform the pose
Eigen::Vector3d attitude = this->transformpose(Eigen::Vector3d(image_pose.at(pose_ittr).orientation[0],image_pose.at(pose_ittr).orientation[1],image_pose.at(pose_ittr).orientation[2]));
roll = attitude(0);
pitch = attitude(1);
yaw = attitude(2);
viewx = ui->viewxhSlider->value();// * std::pow(10,-3);
viewy = ui->viewyhSlider->value();// * std::pow(10,-3);
viewz = ui->viewzhSlider->value();// * std::pow(10,-3);
// debug
std::cout<<"Positon: "<<posx<<"\t"<<posy<<"\t"<<posz<<std::endl<<
"View: "<<viewx<<"\t"<<viewy<<"\t"<<viewz<<std::endl<<
"Orientation: "<<roll<<"\t"<<pitch<<"\t"<<yaw<<std::endl;
point_cutoffy = ui->ptcutoffhSlider->value();
if(yaw <=0)
yaw = yaw * -1;
viewer->setCameraPosition(posx,posy,posz+1,
viewz,viewy,viewz,
0, 0, 1, 0);
viewer->setCameraFieldOfView(1);
viewer->setCameraClipDistances(point_cutoffx,point_cutoffy,0);
ui->qvtkWidget->update();
count++;
}
Any help is greatly appreciated.
-Thanks
P.S
PCL Viewer Set Camera Implementation (uses VTK)
void pcl::visualization::PCLVisualizer::setCameraPosition (
double pos_x, double pos_y, double pos_z,
double view_x, double view_y, double view_z,
double up_x, double up_y, double up_z,
int viewport)
{
rens_->InitTraversal ();
vtkRenderer* renderer = NULL;
int i = 0;
while ((renderer = rens_->GetNextItem ()) != NULL)
{
// Modify all renderer's cameras
if (viewport == 0 || viewport == i)
{
vtkSmartPointer<vtkCamera> cam = renderer->GetActiveCamera ();
cam->SetPosition (pos_x, pos_y, pos_z);
cam->SetFocalPoint (view_x, view_y, view_z);
cam->SetViewUp (up_x, up_y, up_z);
renderer->ResetCameraClippingRange ();
}
++i;
}
win_->Render ();
}
I'm working with very similar problem via opencv Viz, which also uses VTK. Relatively to your question, I think you can find an answer HERE
I've been looking for a way of which I can adjust the size of a 2D game object, depending on the distance it is to the origin. When the game object has a distance of 4 units, it should have a local scale of (1,1,1). When it reaches the origin, it should have a local scale of (0,0,1). This should give the illusion that the game object is getting further away. If anybody knows how to achieve this it would be much appreciated for you to let me know.
Thanks in Advance,
Tommy
You could use linear interpolation on the scale value. Take the [Vector3][1] from the transforms local scale and pass in the distance from the origin.
To show some pseudo code of what I'm talking about:
get the transform
in the update figure out the distance from the origin
get the lerped value (Vector3.lerp(new Vector3(1,1,1), new Vector3(0,0,1), distance from center))
Added example code
public class Scaling : MonoBehaviour
{
private Transform trans;
void Start ()
{
trans = gameObject.transform;
}
void Update ()
{
float dist = Vector3.Distance(Vector3.zero, transform.position);
//don't scale if further away than 4 units
if(dist > 4)
{
transform.localScale = Vector3.forward;
return;
}
//work out the new scale
Vector3 newScale = Vector3.Lerp(Vector3.one, Vector3.forward, dist / 4);
transform.localScale = newScale;
}
}
Working in Processing, I am trying to build my first generative patch. What I want to have happen is start drawing a circle somewhere on screen (a point following the path of a circle), but after a random amount of time, the circle breaks, the line goes in a random direction for a random amount of time, and begins drawing a new circle elsewhere.
Right now I have the circle being drawn, and I have a toggle mechanism that turns on and off after a random period of time. I can't figure out how to get it "break" from that original circle, let alone get it to start a new circle elsewhere. Would anybody have some advice on how to accomplish this? I think it might have an interesting visual effect.
Rotor r;
float timer = 0;
boolean freeze = false;
void setup() {
size(1000,600);
smooth();
noFill();
frameRate(60);
background(255);
timeLimit();
r = new Rotor(random(width),random(height),random(40,100));
}
void draw() {
float t = frameCount / 100.0;
timer = timer + frameRate/1000;
r.drawRotor(t);
if(timer > timeLimit()){
timer = 0;
timeLimit();
if(freeze == true){
freeze = false;
}else{
freeze = true;
}
background(255);
}
}
float timeLimit(){
float timeLimit = random(200);
return timeLimit;
}
Rotor Class:
class Rotor {
color c;
int thickness;
float xPoint;
float yPoint;
float radius;
float angle = 0;
float centerX;
float centerY;
Rotor(float cX, float cY, float rad) {
c = color(0);
thickness = 1;
centerX = cX;
centerY = cY;
radius = rad;
}
void drawRotor(float t) {
stroke(c);
strokeWeight(thickness);
angle = angle + frameRate/1000;
xPoint = centerX + cos(angle) * radius;
yPoint = centerY + sin(angle) * radius;
ellipse(xPoint, yPoint,thickness,thickness);
}
}
First to answer your question about "breaking" circle: you need to create new rotor instance or just change its properties like center and radius. If I got your idea right you just need one instance of rotor so just change this values:
r.centerX = newX;
r.centerY = newY
r.radius = random(40,100) //as you have in setup
But how you can calculate new position? It could be random but you want to create path so you need to calculate it. And here comes the tricky part. So how to make connecting line and start new circle?
First you will need two mode. First will draw circle second will draw line. Simplest way to achieve that is by updating rotor draw method [You can pass mode variable as parameter of drawRotor function or as global variable]:
if(mode == 1){
angle += frameRate/1000;
}else{
radius += 2;
}
As you can see I just differ between increasing angle to draw circle and increasing radius to draw line (not in random direction but in way from center). Then we will need to calculate new position of circle's center. To do this we simple calculate how it would continue according to angle and substitute new radiusso whole part will looks like this:
if(mode != 1){
float newR = random(40,100);
float newX = r.centerX + cos(r.angle) * (r.radius - newR);
float newY = r.centerY + sin(r.angle) * (r.radius - newR);
r.newPos(newX, newY);
r.radius = newR; //we cant change it earlier because we need also old value
}
This will happen inside your "time handler" function only when you change mode back to drawing circle. Mode can be simple changed within handler
mode *= -1; //but need to be init to 1 inside setup()
If you want to have path always visible just delete background() function but if you want some cool effect add this at the begging of draw()
noStroke(); //No stroke needed and you turn it on again in drawRotor()
fill( 255,255,255, 10 ); //This will set transparency to 10%
rect(0,0,width,height); //You put layer after each "point" you draw
noFill(); //This will restore fill settings as you have before
Here I paste whole code just for demonstration and you should modify it according your own purpose. Better to code own version.
The call to background()usually comes as first thing in draw. That's because the draw only renders at the end of each loop (frame). So calling bg at the beginning will clear all stuff drawn in last frame. If you need to persist the draws trough frames can either remove the call to background() or draw your stuff every frame. Or yet draw stuff in a PGraphics and display it.
The other thing is each time the 'Rotor' stops you should give it new random coordinates.
If you go for removing the background() call this will do the trick:
Rotor r;
float timer = 0;
boolean freeze = false;
void setup() {
size(1000,600);
smooth();
noFill();
frameRate(60);
background(255);
timeLimit();
r = new Rotor(random(width),random(height),random(40,100));
}
void draw() {
float t = frameCount / 100.0;
timer = timer + frameRate/1000;
r.drawRotor(t);
if(timer > timeLimit()){
timer = 0;
timeLimit();
//***** here new coordinates!!
r = new Rotor(random(width),random(height),random(40,100));
//*****
if(freeze == true){
freeze = false;
}else{
freeze = true;
}
//***** no background()
// background(255);
}
}
float timeLimit(){
float timeLimit = random(200);
return timeLimit;
}
class Rotor {
color c;
int thickness;
float xPoint;
float yPoint;
float radius;
float angle = 0;
float centerX;
float centerY;
Rotor(float cX, float cY, float rad) {
c = color(0);
thickness = 1;
centerX = cX;
centerY = cY;
radius = rad;
}
void drawRotor(float t) {
stroke(c);
strokeWeight(thickness);
angle = angle + frameRate/1000;
xPoint = centerX + cos(angle) * radius;
yPoint = centerY + sin(angle) * radius;
ellipse(xPoint, yPoint,thickness,thickness);
}
}
now, if you need to clear the screen, You can make a List (ArrayList?) and add a new Rotor to it when the previous is done. But you need to manage the Rotor to be able to display it self without animating as well. So new created Rotor would animate, and old ones would just display its arc without animating. Or make a PGraphis with no call to bg and display it in main canvas that can have a bg call...
A side note, be aware that relying in frameRate to times stuff makes it dependable on the system performance. You can do the same thing using millis()to avoid that. Not an issue so far, as this is very light yet, but may become an issue if the project grows further.
I have a heightmap. I want to efficiently compute which tiles in it are visible from an eye at any given location and height.
This paper suggests that heightmaps outperform turning the terrain into some kind of mesh, but they sample the grid using Bresenhams.
If I were to adopt that, I'd have to do a line-of-sight Bresenham's line for each and every tile on the map. It occurs to me that it ought to be possible to reuse most of the calculations and compute the heightmap in a single pass if you fill outwards away from the eye - a scanline fill kind of approach perhaps?
But the logic escapes me. What would the logic be?
Here is a heightmap with a the visibility from a particular vantagepoint (green cube) ("viewshed" as in "watershed"?) painted over it:
Here is the O(n) sweep that I came up with; I seems the same as that given in the paper in the answer below How to compute the visible area based on a heightmap? Franklin and Ray's method, only in this case I am walking from eye outwards instead of walking the perimeter doing a bresenhams towards the centre; to my mind, my approach would have much better caching behaviour - i.e. be faster - and use less memory since it doesn't have to track the vector for each tile, only remember a scanline's worth:
typedef std::vector<float> visbuf_t;
inline void map::_visibility_scan(const visbuf_t& in,visbuf_t& out,const vec_t& eye,int start_x,int stop_x,int y,int prev_y) {
const int xdir = (start_x < stop_x)? 1: -1;
for(int x=start_x; x!=stop_x; x+=xdir) {
const int x_diff = abs(eye.x-x), y_diff = abs(eye.z-y);
const bool horiz = (x_diff >= y_diff);
const int x_step = horiz? 1: x_diff/y_diff;
const int in_x = x-x_step*xdir; // where in the in buffer would we get the inner value?
const float outer_d = vec2_t(x,y).distance(vec2_t(eye.x,eye.z));
const float inner_d = vec2_t(in_x,horiz? y: prev_y).distance(vec2_t(eye.x,eye.z));
const float inner = (horiz? out: in).at(in_x)*(outer_d/inner_d); // get the inner value, scaling by distance
const float outer = height_at(x,y)-eye.y; // height we are at right now in the map, eye-relative
if(inner <= outer) {
out.at(x) = outer;
vis.at(y*width+x) = VISIBLE;
} else {
out.at(x) = inner;
vis.at(y*width+x) = NOT_VISIBLE;
}
}
}
void map::visibility_add(const vec_t& eye) {
const float BASE = -10000; // represents a downward vector that would always be visible
visbuf_t scan_0, scan_out, scan_in;
scan_0.resize(width);
vis[eye.z*width+eye.x-1] = vis[eye.z*width+eye.x] = vis[eye.z*width+eye.x+1] = VISIBLE;
scan_0.at(eye.x) = BASE;
scan_0.at(eye.x-1) = BASE;
scan_0.at(eye.x+1) = BASE;
_visibility_scan(scan_0,scan_0,eye,eye.x+2,width,eye.z,eye.z);
_visibility_scan(scan_0,scan_0,eye,eye.x-2,-1,eye.z,eye.z);
scan_out = scan_0;
for(int y=eye.z+1; y<height; y++) {
scan_in = scan_out;
_visibility_scan(scan_in,scan_out,eye,eye.x,-1,y,y-1);
_visibility_scan(scan_in,scan_out,eye,eye.x,width,y,y-1);
}
scan_out = scan_0;
for(int y=eye.z-1; y>=0; y--) {
scan_in = scan_out;
_visibility_scan(scan_in,scan_out,eye,eye.x,-1,y,y+1);
_visibility_scan(scan_in,scan_out,eye,eye.x,width,y,y+1);
}
}
Is it a valid approach?
it is using centre-points rather than looking at the slope between the 'inner' pixel and its neighbour on the side that the LoS passes
could the trig in to scale the vectors and such be replaced by factor multiplication?
it could use an array of bytes since the heights are themselves bytes
its not a radial sweep, its doing a whole scanline at a time but away from the point; it only uses only a couple of scanlines-worth of additional memory which is neat
if it works, you could imagine that you could distribute it nicely using a radial sweep of blocks; you have to compute the centre-most tile first, but then you can distribute all immediately adjacent tiles from that (they just need to be given the edge-most intermediate values) and then in turn more and more parallelism.
So how to most efficiently calculate this viewshed?
What you want is called a sweep algorithm. Basically you cast rays (Bresenham's) to each of the perimeter cells, but keep track of the horizon as you go and mark any cells you pass on the way as being visible or invisible (and update the ray's horizon if visible). This gets you down from the O(n^3) of the naive approach (testing each cell of an nxn DEM individually) to O(n^2).
More detailed description of the algorithm in section 5.1 of this paper (which you might also find interesting for other reasons if you aspire to work with really enormous heightmaps).