As I understand it, shadow-mapping is done by rendering the scene from the perspective of the light to create a depth map. Then you re-render the scene from the POV of the camera, and for each point (fragment in GLSL) in the scene you calculate the distance from there to the light source; if it matches what you have in your shadow map, then it's in the light, otherwise it's in the shadow.
I was just reading through this tutorial to get an idea of how how to do shadow mapping with a point/omnidirectional light.
Under section 12.2.2 it says:
We use a single shadow map for all light sources
And then under 12.3.6 it says:
1) Calculate the squared distance from the current pixel to the light source.
...
4) Compare the calculated distance value with the fetched shadow map value to determine whether or not we're in shadow.
Which is roughly what I stated above.
What I don't get is if we've baked all our lights into one shadow map, then which light do we need to compare the distance to? The distance baked into the map shouldn't correspond to anything, because it's a blend of all the lights, isn't it?
I'm sure I'm missing something, but hopefully someone can explain this to me.
Also, if we are using a single shadow map, how do we blend it for all the light sources?
For a single light source the shadow map just stores the distance of the closest object to the light (i.e., a depth map), but for multiple light sources, what would it contain?
You've cut the sentence short prematurely:
We use a single shadow map for all light sources, creating an image
with multipass rendering and performing one pass for each light
source.
So the shadow map contains the data for a single light source at a time but they use only one map because they render only one light at a time.
I think this flows into your second question — light is additive so you combine the results from multiple lights simply by adding them together. In GPU Gems' case, they add together directly in the frame buffer, no doubt because of the relatively limited number of storage texture samplers available on GPUs at the time. Nowadays you probably want to do a combination of combining in the frame buffer and directly in the fragment shader.
You also generally apply the test of "pixel is lit if it's less than or equal to the distance in the shadow buffer plus a little bit" rather than exactly equal, due to floating point rounding error accumulation.
Related
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'm new to WebGL and for an assignment I'm trying to write a function which takes as argument an object, let's say "objectA". ObjectA will not be rendered but if it overlaps with another object in the scene, let’s say “objectB”, the part of objectB which is inside objectA will disappear. So the effect is that there is a hole in ObjectB without modifying its mesh structure.
I've managed to let it work on my own render engine, based on ray tracing, which gives the following effect:
image initial scene:
image with objectA removed:
In the first image, the green sphere is "objectA" and the blue cube is "objectB".
So now I'm trying to program it in WebGL, but I'm a bit stuck. Because WebGL is based on rasterization rather than ray tracing, it has to be calculated in another way. A possibility could be to modify the Z-buffer algorithm, where the fragments with a z-value lying inside objectA will be ignored.
The algorithm that I have in mind works as follows: normally only the fragment with the smallest z-value will be stored at a particular pixel containing the colour and z-value. A first modification is that at a particular pixel, a list of all fragments belonging to that pixel is maintained. No fragments will be discarded. Secondly per fragment an extra parameter is stored containing the object where it belongs to. Next the fragments are sorted in increasing order according to their z-value.
Then, if the first fragment belongs to objectA, it will be ignored. If the next one belongs to objectB, it will be ignored as well. If the third one belongs to objectA and the fourth one to objectB, the fourth one will be chosen because it lies outside objectA.
So the first fragment belonging to objectB will be chosen with the constraint that the amount of previous fragments belonging to objectA is even. If it is uneven, the fragment will lie inside objectA and will be ignored.
Is this somehow possible in WebGL? I've also tried to implement it via a stencil buffer, based on this blog:
WebGL : How do make part of an object transparent?
But this is written for OpenGL. I transformed the code instructions to WebGL code instructions, but it didn't work at all. But I'm not sure whether it will work with a 3D object instead of a 2D triangle.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Why wouldn't you write raytracer inside the fragment shader (aka pixel shader)?
So you would need to render a fullscreen quad (two triangles) and then the fragment shader would be responsible for raytracing. There are plenty of resources to read/learn from.
This links might be useful:
Distance functions - by iq
How shadertoy works
Simple webgl raytracer
EDIT:
Raytracing and SDFs (signed distance functions aka constructive solid geometry (CSGs)) are good way to handle what you need and how is generally achieved to intersect objects. Intersections, and boolean operators in general, for mesh geometry (i.e. made of polygons) is not done during the rendering, rahter it uses special algorithms that do all the processing ahead of rendering, so the resulting mesh actually exists in the memory and its topology is actually calculated and then just rendered.
Depending on the specific scenario that you have, you might be able to achieve the effect under some requirements and restrictions.
There are few important things to take into account: depth peeling (i.e. storing depth values of multiple fragments per single pixel, triangle orientation (CW or CCW) and polygon face orientation (front-facing or back-facing).
Say, for example, that both of your polygons are convex, then rendering backfacing polygons of ObjectA, then of ObjectB, then frontfacing polygons of A, then of B might achieve the desired effect (I'm not including full calculations for all cases of overlaps that can exist).
Under some other sets of restrictions you might be able to achieve the effect.
In your specific example in question, you have shown frontfacing faces of the cube, then in the second image you can see the backface of the cube. That already implies that you have at least two depth values per pixel stored somehow.
There is also a distinction between intersecting in screen-space, or volumes, or faces. Your example works with faces and is the hardest (there are two cases: the one you've shown where mesh A's pixels who are inside mesh B are simply discarded (i.e. you drilled a hole inside its surface), and there is a case where you do boolean operation where you never put a hole in the surface, but in the volume) and is usually done with algorithm that computes output mesh. SDFs are great for volumes. Screen-space is achieved by simply using depth test to discard some fragments.
Again, too many scenarios and depends on what you're trying to achieve and what are the constraints that you're working with.
I'm looking for an efficient way to display lots of spheres using directx 11. The spheres are defined by (x,y,z,r) where (x,y,z) are coordinates in space and r is the radius. I want to display only the spheres that can be seen, meaning that spheres that are not in the field of view and spheres that are too small to be seen wouldn't be drawn. However, if a group of spheres smaller than one pixel is at least as big as one pixel, then I want to display the most predominant color. Spheres have only one color and different levels of transparency. Any help would be appreciated and incomplete answers are acceptable.
You need several things. First an indexed unit sphere geometry, second a buffer to store the sphere instance properties ( position, radius and color ) and third a small buffer for the API parameters yet to come. The three combines in a single 'ID3D11DeviceContext::DrawIndexedInstancedIndirect'
The remaining question is "how to feed the instance buffer ?". cpu is easy, just apply frustum culling, sort back to front because of the transparency and apply a merge based on the screen projection, update the buffer and use 'ID3D11DeviceContext::DrawIndexedInstanced'.
gpu version will do the same thing with compute shaders but will be harder to implement. The advantage, zero cpu/gpu synchronization and should support far more instance.
Background
Using gluTess to build a triangle list in Direct3D9 from a GDI+ DrawString(..) path:
A pixel shader (v3.0) is then used to fill in the shape. When painting with opaque values, everything looks fine:
The problem
At certain font sizes, if the color has an alpha component (ie Argb #55FFFFFF) we begin to see these nasty tessellation artifacts where triangles may overlap ever so slightly:
At larger font sizes the problem is sometimes not present:
Using Intel's excellent GPA Frame Analyzer Pixel History tool, we can see in areas where the artifacts occur, the pixel has been "touched" 3 times from the single Erg.
I'm trying to figure out how I can stop my pixel shader from touching the same pixel more than once.
Other solutions relating to overdraw prevention seem to be all about zbuffer strategies, however this problem is more to do with painting of a single 2D triangle list within a single pixel shader pass.
I'm at a bit of a loss trying to come up with a solution on this one. I was hoping that HLSL might have some sort of "touch each pixel only once" flag, but I've been unable to find anything like that. The closest I've found was to set the BLENDOP to MAX instead of ADD. But the output is not correct when blending over other colors in the scene.
I also have SRCBLEND = ONE, DSTBLEND = INVSRCALPHA. The only combination of flags which produce correct output (albeit with overdraw artifacts.)
I have played with SEPARATEALPHABLENDENABLE in the GPA frame analyzer, which sounded like almost exactly what I need here -- set blending to MAX but only on the "alpha" channel, however from what I can determine, that setting (and corresponding BLENDOPALPHA) affects nothing at all.
One final thing I thought of was to bake text as opaque onto a texture, and then repaint that texture into the scene with the appropriate alpha value applied, however this doesn't actually work in this project because I also support gradient brushes, where stop values may contain alpha, meaning either the artifacts would still be seen, or the final output just plain wrong if we stripped the alpha away from the stop values prior to baking to a texture. Also the whole endeavor would be hideously expensive.
Any hints or pointers would be appreciated. Thanks for reading.
The problem you're seeing shouldn't happen.
If two of your triangles are overlapping it's because you've placed the vertices in such a way that when the adjacent triangles are drawn, they overlap. What's probably happening is that these two adjacent triangles share two vertices, but each triangle has its own copy of each vertex that's been calculated to be in a very, very slightly different position.
The solution to the problem isn't to try and make the pixel shader touch the pixel only once it's to use an index buffer (if you aren't already) and have the shared vertices between each triangle actually share the same vertex and not use one that's ever-so-slightly not in the same place as the one used by the adjacent triangle.
If you aren't in control of the tessellation algorithm being used you may have to run a pass over the vertex buffer after its been generated to detect and merge vertices that are within some very small tolerance of one another. Even without an index buffer, a naive solution would be this:
For each vertex in the vertex buffer, compare its position to every other vertex in the rest of the vertex buffer.
If two vertices are within some small tolerance of another, replace the second vertex's position with the position of the one you are comparing it against.
This should have the effect of pairing up the positions of two vertices if they are close enough that you deem them to be the same.
You now shouldn't have any problem with overlapping triangles. In everyday rendering two triangles share edges with each other all the time and you won't ever get the effect where they appear to every-so-slightly overlap. The hardware guarantees that a sample point is either on one side of the line or the other, but never both at the same time, no matter how close the point is to the line (even if it's mathematically on the line, it still fails on one side or the other).
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.