Are there any classes, methods in the .NET library, or any algorithms in general, to perform non-affine transformations? (i.e. transformations that involve more than just rotation, scale, translation and shear)
e.g.:
(source: last100.com)
Is there another term for non-affine transformations?
I am not aware of anything integrated in .Net letting you do non affine transforms.
I guess you are trying to have some sort of 3D texture mapping? If that's the case you need an homogenous affine transform, which is not available in .Net. I'm also not aware of any integrated way to make pixel displacement transforms in .Net.
However, the currently voted solution might be good for what you are trying to do, just be aware that it won't do perspective correction out of the box.
For instance:
The picture on the left was generated using the single quad distort library provided by Neil N. The picture on the right was generated using a single quad (two triangles actually) in DirectX.
This may not have any impact on what you are trying to do, but this is something to keep in mind if you want to do 3D stuff, it will look very weird without perspective correct mapping.
All of the example images you posted can be done with a Quadrilateral Distortion. Though I cant say for certain that a quad distort will cover ALL non affine transforms.
Heres a link to a not so good implementation of it in C#... it works, but is slow. Poke around Wikipedia for the many different optimizations available for these kinds of calculations
http://www.vcskicks.com/image-distortion.html
-Neil
You can do this in wpf using a the Viewport3d control and a non-affine transform matrix. Rendering this to a bitmap again may be interesting.... Which I "fixed" by including an invisible <image> control with the same image as on my textured plane... (Also, I've had to work around the max texture size issues by splitting up the plane and cropping images...)
http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2007/08/060605.html
In my case I wanted the reverse of this (transform so arbitrary points on the warped become the corners of my rectangular window), which is the Inverse of the matrix to do the opposite.
Related
I enjoy computer graphics.
I was wondering what the fastest engine was with the following functionality:
Draws triangles with 4 color channels rgba and allows for the drawing of point and directional lights.
Texturing would be a cool additional feature, but again I am looking for the fastest engine, not the most functional. Camera animation and object animation will be imperative.
Finally there are really 2 answers for this question, 1 for general development and one for web, but if you can only speak to one or the other your contributions will be appreciated!
There are quite a lot of engines that do the job. One of the most known is for example Unity, where you also have tons of other features in good performance.
But I think you are not really looking for an engine but an API. Examples are OpenGL or DirectX (already mentioned). OpenGL even has a specific web content (WebGL).
There is one more problem: the triangles should be semitransparent. What is missing in the other answer is the question if the triangles are already ordered. OpenGL for example is good in rendering objects where it does not matter which triangle is nearest to the viewer. It "searches" this one on the fly and shows only the triangle that is visible. But with semitransparent triangles it is possible to see different triangles overlapping each other and therefore it is not only necessary to know which triangle is in the front, but which triangle comes directly after that and so on. OpenGL offers blending for this feature, but is necessary to order the semitransparent triangles manually before rendering. This is called the Painters Algorithm. While Sorting of objects is a complex problem, exspecially with a large number of objects, this could take quite long time.
For this there is another solution called "depth peeling". The idea is to render all triangles multiple times with OpenGL. The first time you get all the triangles which are in the front. Now you render all triangles again, but without the triangles in the front. This results in the second nearest triangles to the viewer. After that all triangles are rendered again, but without the first two "peels", which results in the third nearest triangles and so on. This is expensive because everything has to get rendered multiple times, but in cases where there is a very large number of triangles this is faster than sorting (and more precise due to overlapping triangles). In most cases four peels are enough for good results. For further read I suggest the following paper of Everitt: http://gamedevs.org/uploads/interactive-order-independent-transparency.pdf
Your best bet is probably OpenGL. In the case of the web, you could use WebGL and in the case of native desktop or mobile development you could directly use OpenGL.
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.
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.
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.