To clarify the technical problem i have, i want to describe the scene i have in mind:
In a 3D computer simulation, I want to build a kind of cabin (cube form) that stands isolated in a large plane. There's 1 door to enter the cabin. Next to this door I want to show a movie playing (avi file or something) on the wall of the cabin.
If you enter the cabin, on all 4 sides I want to show a virtual 3D landscape projection that is based on the input of the video projected outside: every pixel in the video will be represented as a cube (rgb -> height width depth). The resulting landscape of cubes needs to be projected on the inside walls of the cabin. And as a user, you will not be able to walk into this projection (it's a virtual window, not a portal).
Technically, for me this translates into these questions: i want to
display a movie inside the 3D world on a wall
access the pixel data of this movie
transform on the fly these pixels into 3D representation of cubes
show these cubes as a virtual projection on a wall in the game. (as a kind of visual teleport that you can't cross)
I was wondering which 3d engine would allow this? I don't mind any programming language. I'm fluent in mono/.net or java, but i can manage c++ or other languages (as long as the engine is well documented).
Kind Regards,
Ruben.
ps:
I don't know if this question is of interest to anybody else. At least not in the functional kind of way. But maybe it triggers a hypothetical interest :)
Any engine that supports dynamic texture maps and multiple viewports (rendering surfaces).
render the scene you want on your wall
texture wall with the output of 1
render your room scene
Many engines support this. The Unreal Tournament Engine (UT2004) supports this, as evidenced by the dynamic texture on carried sniper scopes (example, Killing Floor). Security camera screens in Half-life 2 do this as well (source engine).
Related
how to rotate the yellow cube towards the car ? I have a spinning camera, I think this is the case
Are you trying to do with with code? I remind you StackOverflow is for programming. For other game related things there is gamedev.stackexchange.com.
If you are doing this with code - and given that I don't know how the scene tree looks like - I suggest using look_at. Something like this (code for the Camera):
look_at(car.global_transform.origin, car.global_transform.basis.y)
There car is a reference to the car. I can't tell you how to get one without looking at the scene tree, beyond that you can probably use get_node. So car.global_transform.origin is the position of the car in global coordinates. And car.global_transform.basis.y is the direction towards the up of the car.
The method look_at needs an up vector because there are infinite ways to look at a given point (rotate around the view line). Thus, we do not want an up vector that matches the view line. For example, Vector3.UP won't work if the camera is looking directly up or directly down.
And if you just want to rotate this in the designer. You can use the gizmo you see when you select it. You can drag the blue ring until it is aligned correctly.
The de facto standard for this gizmos is that x is red, y is green, and z is blue (this is true in Godot, Blender, and plenty of other software). So the blue ring rotates around the z axis. You can also find that rotation in the inspector panel, look for rotation degrees for the z under transform.
I remind you that if you place the Camera as a child node of another Spatial, it will keep its position and orientation relative to it. So placing the Camera as child of your player character (e.g. a KinematicBody) is often good enough for the early stages of development, as that guarantees that the Camera follows the player character. No coding necessary. You may want a more elaborate Camera control later, which would require some code.
Since you mention "spinning camera", perhaps you want a Camera that orbits around a point. The easier way to do this is to add an auxiliary Spatial for the point the Camera rotates around. Let us call it Pivot, and rotate that. For clarity, I'm suggesting a setup like this:
PlayerCharacter
└ Pivot
└ Camera
Here the Pivot follows the player character. And the Camera follows the Pivot. So moving the player character moves the Camera, and rotating the Pivot makes the Camera orbit. This is just lacking some code to make the Pivot rotate. For example something like this (code for Pivot):
global_transform.rotate_y(Input.get_axis("camera_left", "camera_right"))
Where "camera_left" and "camera_right" are actions configured in the Input Map (in Project settings). Which reminds me, you can set actions from code with Input.action_press, so there could be code somewhere else (e.g. _input) writing these actions from mouse movement.
Camera Control does not have to be hard.
I know that there are 4 techniques to draw 3D objects:
(1) Wireframe Modeling and rendering, (2) Additive Modeling, (3) Subtractive Modeling, (4) Splines and curves.
Then, those models go through hidden surface removal algorithm.
Am I correct?
Be that way, What formula or algorithm can I use to draw a 3D Sphere?
I am using a low-level library named WinBGIm from colorado university.
there are 4 techniques to draw 3D objects:
(1) Wireframe Modeling and rendering, (2) Additive Modeling, (3) Subtractive Modeling, (4) Splines and curves.
These are modelling techniques and not rendering techniques. They allow you to mathematically define your mesh's geometry. How you render this data on to a 2D canvas is another story.
There are two fundamental approaches to rendering 3D models on a 2D canvas.
Ray Tracing
The basic idea of ray tracing is to pass a ray from the camera's origin, through the point on the canvas whose colour needs to be determined. Determine which models get hit by it and pick the closest one, determine how it's lit to compute the colour there. This is done by further tracing rays from the hit point to all the light sources in the scene. If you notice, this approach eliminates the need to use hidden surface determination algorithms like the back face culling, z-buffer, etc. since the basic idea is rooted on a hidden surface algorithm (ray tracing).
There are packages, libraries, etc. that help you do this. However, it's common that ray tracers are written from scratch as a college-level project. However, this approach takes more time to render (not to code), but the results are generally more pleasing than the below one. This approach is more popular when you want to render non-interactive visuals like movies.
Rasterization
This approach takes primitives (triangles and quads) that define the models in the scene and sample them at regular intervals (screen pixels they cover) and write it on to a colour buffer. Here hidden surface is usually eliminated using the Z-buffer; a buffer that stores the z-order of the fragment and the closer one wins, when writing to the colour buffer.
Rasterization is the more popular approach with cheap hardware support for it available on most modern computers due to years of research and money that has gone in to it. Libraries like OpenGL and Direct3D are readily available to facilitate development. Although the results are less pleasing than ray tracing, it's faster to render and thus is widely used in interactive, real-time rendering like games.
If you want to not use those libraries, then you have to do what is commonly known as software rendering i.e. you will end up doing what these libraries do.
What formula or algorithm can I use to draw a 3D Sphere?
Depends on which one of the above you choose. If you simply rasterize a 3D sphere in 2D with orthographic projection, all you have to do is draw a circle on the canvas.
If you are looking for hidden lines removal (drawing the edges rather than the inside of the faces), the solution is easy: "back face culling".
Every edge of your model belongs to two faces. For every face you can compute the normal vector and check if it is facing to the observer (by the sign of the dot product of the normal and the direction of the projection line); in other words, if the observer is located in the outer half-space defined by the plane of the face. Then an edge is wholly visible if and only if it belongs to at least one front face.
Usual discretization of the sphere are made by drawing equidistant parallels and meridians. It may be advantageous to adjust the spacing of the parallels so that all tiles are about the same area.
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.
I am trying to create an application similar in UI to Sketchup. As a first step, I need to display the ground surface stretching out in all directions. What is the best way to do this?
Options:
Create a sufficiently large regular polygon stretching out in all directions from the origin. Here there is a possibility of the user hitting the edges and falling off the surface of the earth.
Model the surface of the earth as a sphere/spheroid. Here I will be limiting my vertex co-ordinates to very large values prone to rounding off errors. (Radius of earth is 6371000000 millimeter).
Same as 1 but dynamically extend the ends of the earth as the user gets close to them.
What is the usual practice?
I guess you would do neither of these, but instead use a virtual ground.
So you just find out, what portion of the ground is visible in the viewport and then create a plane large enough to fill that. With some reasonable maxiumum, which simulates the end of the line of sight aka horizon as we know it.
I would like to calculate the distance between my camera and a recognized "object".
The recognized "object" is a black rectangle sticker on a white board for example. I know the values of the rectangle (x,y).
Is there a method that I can use to calculate the distance with the values of my original rectangle, and the values of the picture of the rectangle I took with the camera?
I searched the forum for answeres, but none of the were specified to calculate the distance with these attributes.
I am working on a robot called Nao from Aldebaran Robotics, I am planing to use OpenCV to recognize the black rectangle.
If you could compute the angle taken up by the image of the target, then the distance to the target should be proportional to cot (i.e. 1/tan) of that angle. You should find that the number of pixels in the image corresponded roughly to the angles, but I doubt it is completely linear, especially up close.
The behaviour of your camera lens is likely to affect this measurement, so it will depend on your exact setup.
Why not measure the size of the target at several distances, and plot a scatter graph? You could then fit a curve to the data to get a size->distance function for your particular system. If your camera is close to an "ideal" camera, then you should find this graph looks like cot, and you should be able to find your values of a and b to match dist = a * cot (b * width).
If you try this experiment, why not post the answers here, for others to benefit from?
[Edit: a note about 'ideal' cameras]
For a camera image to look 'realistic' to us, the image should approximate projection onto a plane held infront of the eye (because camera images are viewed by us by holding a planar image in front of our eyes). Imagine holding a sheet of tracing paper up in front of your eye, and sketching the objects silhouette on that paper. The second diagram on this page shows sort of what I mean. You might describe a camera which achieves this as an "ideal" camera.
Of course, in real life, cameras don't work via tracing paper, but with lenses. Very complicated lenses. Have a look at the lens diagram on this page. For various reasons which you could spend a lifetime studying, it is very tricky to create a lens which works exactly like the tracing paper example would work under all conditions. Start with this wiki page and read on if you want to know more.
So you are unlikely to be able to compute an exact relationship between pixel length and distance: you should measure it and fit a curve.
It is a big topic. If you want to proceed from a single image, take a look at this old paper by A. Criminisi. For an in-depth view, read his Ph.D. thesis. Then start playing with the OpenCV routines in the "projective geometry" sectiop.
I have been working on Image/Object Recognition as well. I just released a python programmed android app (ported to android) that recognizes objects, people, cars, books, logos, trees, flowers... anything:) It also shows it's thought process as it "thinks" :)
I've put it out as a test for 99 cents on google play.
Here's the link if you're interested, there's also a video of it in action:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.davecote.androideyes
Enjoy!
:)