In the stereo camera system, two cameras are needed and should be mounted side by side. I see someone just glues two cameras to a wooden board. However One mobile phone manufacture claimed that the two lens of dual camera modules on their phone are parallel within 0.3 degree. Why do two lens on mobile phones need such high precise assembly? Does this will bring any benefit?
I have not worked on stereo setup, but would like to answer from what I have studied during my course. Camera setup which are not parallel are usually called converged/toe-in setup.
Stereo camera setup which are parallel does provide some advantages over toe-in setup. But the advantage is not absolute and dependent on what is required.
In toe-in setup there is a problem of keystoning. Keystoning is when two images(Left and Right) are kept side by side, the images are aligned at the meeting point but they tilt as you go further towards the edge. This leads to depth plane curvature and it shows as though farther objects are curved. This can be corrected in post processing and its called keystone correction. There is no keystone problem in parallel setup. Below image shows image distortion towards edges. If your requirement is not to have keystone effect, then it is an advantage ;)
In parallel setup you can decide the image convergence in post processing by slightly shifting the images horizontally(Horizontal image translation HIT). In toe-in you need to decide the convergence area during the shoot. Convergence is the region of the image which is same in both Left and Right. As you can imagine, in parallel setup, there is no convergence and you get stereo effect for the whole image. This is good right ? Depends. Because, in stereo, we have zero place, near plane and far place. Zero plane is when the image is perceived as to be formed on the screen(screen on which image is projected in the theatre).Near field is near the viewer(imagine popping out of the screen towards the viewer). Far field is farther from the viewer. Therefore, since there is no convergence in parallel setup the whole screen has stereo effect(that is near or far field, see figure below) and convergence is at infinity. Now imagine sky which is very deep in real, i.e the sky which is at infinity. But since in parallel setup sky converges as it is at infinity and appears to be formed on the screen. But a person who is near to the viewer seems to be floating in stereo space, which messes up the brain. Therefore usually people prefer slight convergence angle to avoid this or use HIT such that the convergence point appears on the zero field. Hope this helps :) I will try to rephrase this tomorrow as I wrote this in one go.
Related
I've been fiddling my way through vulkan, and have tried out some basic diffuse lighting, which only takes into account the surface normals. On the side of the model facing the light, things look fine -
On the opposite side of the model though, there's a part of the model which is shaded like it is illuminated even though it shouldn't be-
I know this happens because I'm only considering the surface normals and the shader doesn't care where the vertex is as long as its normal is towards the light, but how do I fix it? I feel like I need a way to do a depth test to figure out whether a part of the model should be lighted or not. How would I go about doing this if that is the case? What should I be doing if otherwise?
Sounds like you want to implement shadows.
A standard way is shadow mapping. You render the scene from the point of the light and only keep the depth buffer. You then pass that depth buffer as a texture to the fragment shader and sample that based on where the point is in the world and compare the sampled depth with the distance to the light.
However there are various caveats with this technique. Most common ones being shadow acne where quantization error leads to fragments self shadowing resulting in speckled lighting, you can fix that by adding a small offset to the depth. The next one is peter panning, where that offset you added previously leads to light bleedthrough where a thin wall meets a floor, you fix that by not having walls thin enough that the offset goes through them.
I am working on a game which was developed by some other guy earlier. I am facing a problem that when player(with camera) start running on the road the buildings are not being shown up in their regular shape and as we move forward (more closer to the buildings) they gain their original shapes, and some times the buildings present on either side of the road are not visible by camera ( empty space ) and when we move closer to the building it comes up as visible object suddenly. I think it may be some unity3d setting problem (rendering , camera or quality). May be, it was being done due to increase performance on mobile devices.
can anybody know what may be the issue or how to resolve it.
Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance
This sounds like it's a problem with the available LODs for each building's 3D model.
Basically, 3d games work by having 2-3 different versions of each 3D model, with varying *L*evels *O*f *D*etail. So for example, if you have a house model which uses 500 polygons, you'll probably have another 2 versions (eg 250 polys and 100 polys), which are used depending on the distance between the player and the object. The farther away he is, the simpler the version used will be.
The issue occurs when developers use automatically generated LOD models, which will look distorted or won't appear at all. Unity probably auto generates them, but I'm unsure where you'll find the settings for this in unity. However I've seen 3d models on the unity store offering models with different LODs, so unity probably gives you the option to set your own. The simplest solution would be to increase the distance the LODs change at, while the complicated solution would be to fix custom versions of the 3D models for larger distances, with a lower poly count.
I have resolved the problem. This was due to the LOD (level of details) used for objects (buildings) in Unity3d to enhance the performance on the slower device. LOD provides many level of details (of an object) which you can adjust according to your need . In my specific problem the buildings were suddenly appear due to the different (wrong) position for LOD1, i.e. for LOD1 the building was at wrong place but for LOD0 it was at its right place. So when my camera see from the distance it see LOD1 which was at wrong place thence it sees empty space with no building at the expected position. But when camera comes closer it sees LOD0 in which building is at the right position and it seems that buildings are suddenly come or become visible.
I'm considering exploiting ray coherence in my software per-pixel realtime raycaster.
AFAICT, using a uniform grid, if I assign ray coherence to patches of say 4x4 pixels (where at present I have one raycast per pixel), given 16 parallel rays with different start (and end) point, how does this work out to a coherent scene? What I foresee is:
There is a distance within which the ray march would be exactly the same for adjacent/similar rays. Within that distance, I am saving on processing. (How do I know what that distance is?)
I will end up with a slightly to seriously incorrect image, due to the fact that some rays didn't diverge at the right times.
Given that my rays are cast from a single point rather than a plane, I guess I will need some sort of splitting function according to distance traversed, such that the set of all rays forms a tree as it move outward. My concern here is that finer detail will be lost when closer to the viewer.
I guess I'm just not grasping how this is meant to be used.
If done correctly, ray coherence shouldn't affect the final image. Because the rays are very close together, there's a good change that they'll all take similar paths when traversing the acceleration structure (kd-tree, aabb tree, etc). You have to go down each branch that any of the rays could hit, but hopefully this doesn't increase the number of branches much, and it saves on memory access.
The other advantage is that you can use SIMD (e.g. SSE) to accelerate some of your tests, both in the acceleration structure and against the triangles.
I am writing a physics simulation using Ogre and MOC.
I have a sphere that I shoot from the camera's position and it travels in the direction the camera is facing by using the camera's forward vector.
I would like to know how I can detect the point of collision between my sphere and another mesh.
How would I be able to check for a collision point between the two meshes using MOC or OGRE?
Update: Should have mentioned this earlier. I am unable to use a 3rd party physics library as we I need to develop this myself (uni project).
The accepted solution here flat out doesn't work. It will only even sort of work if the mesh density is generally high enough that no two points on the mesh are farther apart than the diameter of your collision sphere. Imagine a tiny sphere launched at short range on a random vector at a huuuge cube mesh. The cube mesh only has 8 verts. What are the odds that the cube is actually going to hit one of those 8 verts?
This really needs to be done with per-polygon collision. You need to be able to check intersection of polygon and a sphere (and additionally a cylinder if you want to avoid tunneling like reinier mentioned). There are quite a few resources for this online and in book form, but http://www.realtimerendering.com/intersections.html might be a useful starting point.
The comments about optimization are good. Early out opportunities (perhaps a quick check against a bounding sphere or an axis aligned bounding volume for the mesh) are essential. Even once you've determined that you're inside a bounding volume, it would probably be a good idea to be able to weed out unlikely polygons (too far away, facing the wrong direction, etc.) from the list of potential candidates.
I think the best would be to use a specialized physics library.
That said. If I think about this problem, I would suspect that it's not that hard:
The sphere has a midpoint and a radius. For every point in the mesh do the following:
check if the point lies inside the sphere.
if it does check if it is closer to the center than the previously found point(if any)
if it does... store this point as the collision point
Of course, this routine will be fairly slow.
A few things to speed it up:
for a first trivial reject, first see if the bounding sphere of the mesh collides
don't calc the squareroots when checking distances... use the squared lengths instead.(much faster)
Instead of comparing every point of the mesh, use a dimensional space division algorithm (quadtree / BSP)for the mesh to quickly rule out groups of points
Ah... and this routine only works if the sphere doesn't travel too fast (relative to the mesh). If it would travel very fast, and you sample it X times per second, chances are the sphere would have flown right through the mesh without every colliding. To overcome this, you must use 'swept volumes' which basically makes your sphere into a tube. Making the math exponentially complicated.
As the title says, I'm fleshing out a design for a 2D platformer engine. It's still in the design stage, but I'm worried that I'll be running into issues with the renderer, and I want to avoid them if they will be a concern.
I'm using SDL for my base library, and the game will be set up to use a single large array of Uint16 to hold the tiles. These index into a second array of "tile definitions" that are used by all parts of the engine, from collision handling to the graphics routine, which is my biggest concern.
The graphics engine is designed to run at a 640x480 resolution, with 32x32 tiles. There are 21x16 tiles drawn per layer per frame (to handle the extra tile that shows up when scrolling), and there are up to four layers that can be drawn. Layers are simply separate tile arrays, but the tile definition array is common to all four layers.
What I'm worried about is that I want to be able to take advantage of transparencies and animated tiles with this engine, and as I'm not too familiar with designs I'm worried that my current solution is going to be too inefficient to work well.
My target FPS is a flat 60 frames per second, and with all four layers being drawn, I'm looking at 21x16x4x60 = 80,640 separate 32x32px tiles needing to be drawn every second, plus however many odd-sized blits are needed for sprites, and this seems just a little excessive. So, is there a better way to approach rendering the tilemap setup I have? I'm looking towards possibilities of using hardware acceleration to draw the tilemaps, if it will help to improve performance much. I also want to hopefully be able to run this game well on slightly older computers as well.
If I'm looking for too much, then I don't think that reducing the engine's capabilities is out of the question.
I think the thing that will be an issue is the sheer amount of draw calls, rather than the total "fill rate" of all the pixels you are drawing. Remember - that is over 80000 calls per second that you must make. I think your biggest improvement will be to batch these together somehow.
One strategy to reduce the fill-rate of the tiles and layers would be to composite static areas together. For example, if you know an area doesn't need updating, it can be cached. A lot depends of if the layers are scrolled independently (parallax style).
Also, Have a look on Google for "dirty rectangles" and see if any schemes may fit your needs.
Personally, I would just try it and see. This probably won't affect your overall game design, and if you have good separation between logic and presentation, you can optimise the tile drawing til the cows come home.
Make sure to use alpha transparency only on tiles that actually use alpha, and skip drawing blank tiles. Make sure the tile surface color depth matches the screen color depth when possible (not really an option for tiles with an alpha channel), and store tiles in video memory, so sdl will use hardware acceleration when it can. Color key transparency will be faster than having a full alpha channel, for simple tiles where partial transparency or blending antialiased edges with the background aren't necessary.
On a 500mhz system you'll get about 6.8 cpu cycles per pixel per layer, or 27 per screen pixel, which (I believe) isn't going to be enough if you have full alpha channels on every tile of every layer, but should be fine if you take shortcuts like those mentioned where possible.
I agree with Kombuwa. If this is just a simple tile-based 2D game, you really ought to lower the standards a bit as this is not Crysis. 30FPS is very smooth (research Command & Conquer 3 which is limited to 30FPS). Even still, I had written a remote desktop viewer that ran at 14FPS (1900 x 1200) using GDI+ and it was still pretty smooth. I think that for your 2D game you'll probably be okay, especially using SDL.
Can you just buffer each complete layer into its view plus an additional tile size for all four ends(if you have vertical scrolling), use the buffer again to create a new buffer minus the first column and drawing on a new end column?
This would reduce a lot of needless redrawing.
Additionally, if you want a 60fps, you can look up ways to create frame skip methods for slower systems, skipping every other or every third draw phase.
I think you will be pleasantly surprised by how many of these tiles you can draw a second. Modern graphics hardware can fill a 1600x1200 framebuffer numerous times per frame at 60 fps, so your 640x480 framebuffer will be no problem. Try it and see what you get.
You should definitely take advantage of hardware acceleration. This will give you 1000x performance for very little effort on your part.
If you do find you need to optimise, then the simplest way is to only redraw the areas of the screen that have changed since the last frame. Sounds like you would need to know about any animating tiles, and any tiles that have changed state each frame. Depending on the game, this can be anywhere from no benefit at all, to a massive saving - it really depends on how much of the screen changes each frame.
You might consider merging neighbouring tiles with the same texture into a larger polygon with texture tiling (sort of a build process).
What about decreasing the frame rate to 30fps. I think it will be good enough for a 2D game.