Is there a standard way of allowing two hands to cross each other with the Leap Motion API?
It seems that when I cross my hands, one hand is knocked out, until I uncross my hands in which the hand is reinserted into the environment but is assigned a new ID.
This even when using the debug tool built into the Leap Motion console.
There is no way to detect the cross over hands right now, as the shape of the cross over hands doesn't fit the 3D hand model adopted by the leap motion. This also happens when you have an object in your hand. The object is treated as a part of your hand and when this shape is compared to the 3D model, it produces random fitting results or fitting at all.
So, in short, no there is no way.
Related
In 2007, when I was young and foolish and before I knew about Open Street Map, I started an urban historical map project. I was working in Illustrator, it was going to be an interactive Flash piece, and my process was to draw the maps first, with the thought that I'd label some, but not all, of the street later on.
As we know Flash was began to die about 2010 and I put the project away for a number of years. I picked it up again a couple years ago and continued my earlier practice of just drawing streets and water features, this time with the intention of making it a conventional web map. Now I'm pretty close to finishing the drawing of a five-layer (1871, 1903, 1932, 1952 and 2016) historical map of a medium-sized city, though it still lacks labels.
My problem now is how to add large numbers of labels, many of them duplicates. There could be as many as 10,000 for all five layers, though as a practical matter I may have to settle for a smallish fraction of that number. Based on web searches I gather my workflow is unusual and that mine is therefore an unusual problem.
I've exported my maps and brought them into QGIS and played with the software a little. The process of adding labels to objects doesn't seem terribly efficient or user-friendly, but that's probably due to my unfamiliarity with the program.
So my question is this: Are there any tricks to speed up the painful process of adding large numbers of duplicate labels in either QGIS or ArcGIS? Since so many of the streets exist in all five layers, functionality like the ability to select multiple objects in different layers and edit their attributes simultaneously in the Attribute Table would be a godsend. (Doesn't seem possible.) So would the ability to copy the attributes from one object and paste them onto other objects. Or the ability to do either of these things in Illustrator via a plugin and then export the data along with the shapes to a GIS program.
Thanks for your help!
If I understand the issue correctly I think are several different solutions. When you say that you
Typically for a spatial layer in ArcGIS or QGIS you define how to label all features in a layer once by defining a label scheme to use across all features, 1 or 1 million. This assumes that each feature in the layer has one or more attributes in the associated table for the layer.
How are you converting the Illustrator vectors to a spatial layer? DXF?
You will likely have better/faster responses to this question by posting it to the GIS Stack exchange. https://gis.stackexchange.com/
I mean, the basics..
1) I have seen in the Online videos, that they are modelling a character (or anything) through one object only, they are extruding, loop cut, scaling, etc and model a character, why don't they design different objects separately (like hands separately, legs separately, body separate and then join them together and make one object)..??????
2) Like What the texturing department has to see so that they should not return the model back to the modelling department. I mean like the meshes(polygons) over the model face must be quad, etc not triangle. while modelling a character..
what type of basics i should know , means is there any check list or is there any basics which i should see before modelling a character..
Please correct me if i am wrong , and answer my both questions.. Thanks
It may be common but it definitely isn't mandatory to have a model as one solid mesh. Some models will have parts of the body underneath clothing removed to reduce the poly count. How the model is to be used will be a big factor to how you model it, that is a for a single image it is easy to get away with multiple parts, while a character that will be animated in a cartoony animation could be stretched and distorted in ways that could show holes in a model with multiple pieces. When working in a team, there may be rules in place determining whether a solid or multi-part model is considered acceptable.
An example of an animated model made from multiple parts is Sintel, the main character in the Sintel short animation.
There is nothing stopping you from making a library of separate body parts and joining them together when you make your model. Be aware that this can bring complications, if you model an arm with 12 verts and then you make your hand with 15, then you have to fiddle around to merge them together.
You will also find some extra freedom to work with multiple body parts during the sculpting phase as you are creating a high density mesh that is used as a template to model a clean mesh over. This step is called retopology.
It is more likely that the rigging department will send a model back for fixing than the texturing department. When adding a rig and deforming the mesh in different ways, any parts that deform badly will be revealed and need fixing.
[...] (like hands separately, legs separately, body separate and then
join them together and make one object) [...]
Some modelers I know do precisely this and they do it in a way where they block in the design using broad primitive shapes, start slicing some edge loops and add broad details, then merge everything together, then sculpt it a bit further with high-res sculpting tools, and finally retopologize everything.
The main modelers I know who do this, however, model in a way that tries to adhere as close as possible to the concept artist's illustration. They're not creating their own models from scratch but are instead given top/front/back/side illustrations of a character, for example, and are just trying to match it as closely as possible.
When you start modeling everything in small pieces, it helps to have that concept illustration since you can get lost in the topology otherwise and fusing organic meshes together can be difficult to do in a clean way.
[...] why don't they design different objects separately? [...]
Again they sometimes do, but one of the appeals of creating organic meshes by keeping it seamless the entire time is that you can start to focus on how edge loops propagate across the entire model. It helps to know that the base of a finger is a hexagon, for example, in figuring out how to cleanly propagate and terminate the edge loops for a hand, and likewise have a strategy for the hand to cleanly propagate and terminate edge loops as it joins into the forearm.
It can be hard to get the topology to match up cleanly if you designed everything in small pieces and then had to figure out how to merge it all together. Polygonal modeling is very topology-oriented. It tends to require as much thinking about the wireframe and edge flows as it does the shape of the model, since it needs to be a certain way for everything to subdivide cleanly and smoothly and animate predictably with subdivision surfaces.
I used to work with developers who took one glance at the topology-dominated workflow of polygonal modeling and immediately wanted to jump to seeking alternatives, like voxel sculpting. With voxels you could be able to potentially model everything in pieces and foose it all together in a nice and smooth organic way without thinking about topology whatsoever.
However, that loses sight of the key appeal of polygonal meshes. Their wire flow forms a control lattice with a very finite number of control points for the artist to animate and move around to predictably control the shape of their model. You immediately lose that with a voxel representation -- so while voxels free the artist of thinking about how the topology works and how the wireframe flows through the model, it also loses all those control benefits of having that. So often if people use voxel sculpting, they end up meticulously retopologizing everything at the end anyway to gain back that level of coarse and predictable control they have with polygonal meshes.
I mean like the
meshes(polygons) over the model face must be quad, etc not triangle.
while modelling a character..
This is all in the context of subdivision surfaces: the most popular of which are variants of catmull-clark. That favors quads to get the most predictable subdivision. It's much easier for the artist to predict how everything will look like and deform if they favor, as much as possible, uniform grids of quadrangles wrapped around their model with 4-valence vertices and every polygon having 4 points. Then only in the case where they kind of need to "join" these quad grids together, they might create some funky topology: a 5-valence vertex here, a 3-valence vertex there, a 5-sided polygon here, a triangle there -- but those cases tend to deform a bit unpredictably (at least unintuitively), so artists tend to try to avoid these as much as possible.
Because when artists model polygonal meshes in this way, they are not just trying to create a statue with a nice shape. If that's all they wanted to do, they'd save themselves a lot of grief avoiding dealing with things in terms of individual vertices/edges/polygons in the first place and using something like Sculptris. Instead they are designing not only shapes but also designing a control lattice, a wire flow and a set of control points they can easily move around in the future to get predictable behavior out of their control cage. They're basically designing controls or an "interactive GUI/rig" almost for themselves with how they design the topology.
2) Like What the texturing department has to see so that they should
not return the model back to the modelling department.
Generally how a mesh is modeled in a direct sense shouldn't affect the texture department's work much at all if they're working with UV maps and painting textures over them (at that point it doesn't really matter if a model has clean wire flows or not, since all the texture artists do is pain images over the 2D UV map or directly onto the 3D model).
However, if the modeler does the UV mapping, then regardless of whether he uses quad meshes and clean wire flows or not, if the UV mapping is poor, then the resulting texture images will look all distorted. So the UV maps need to be made well with minimal distortion, though that's usually easy to do automatically these days.
The other exception is if the department doesn't use UV maps and instead uses, say, PTex from Disney. PTex really favors quads. In the original paper at least, it only worked with quads.
Background
I'm working on a project where a user gets scanned by a Kinect (v2). The result will be a generated 3D model which is suitable for use in games.
The scanning aspect is going quite well, and I've generated some good user models.
Example:
Note: This is just an early test model. It still needs to be cleaned up, and the stance needs to change to properly read skeletal data.
Problem
The problem I'm currently facing is that I'm unsure how to place skeletal data inside the generated 3D model. I can't seem to find a program that will let me insert the skeleton in the 3D model programmatically. I'd like to do this either via a program that I can control programmatically, or adjust the 3D model file in such a way that skeletal data gets included within the file.
What have I tried
I've been looking around for similar questions on Google and StackOverflow, but they usually refer to either motion capture or skeletal animation. I know Maya has the option to insert skeletons in 3D models, but as far as I could find that is always done by hand. Maybe there is a more technical term for the problem I'm trying to solve, but I don't know it.
I do have a train of thought on how to achieve the skeleton insertion. I imagine it to go like this:
Scan the user and generate a 3D model with Kinect;
1.2. Clean user model, getting rid of any deformations or unnecessary information. Close holes that are left in the clean up process.
Scan user skeletal data using the Kinect.
2.2. Extract the skeleton data.
2.3. Get joint locations and store as xyz-coordinates for 3D space. Store bone length and directions.
Read 3D skeleton data in a program that can create skeletons.
Save the new model with inserted skeleton.
Question
Can anyone recommend (I know, this is perhaps "opinion based") a program to read the skeletal data and insert it in to a 3D model? Is it possible to utilize Maya for this purpose?
Thanks in advance.
Note: I opted to post the question here and not on Graphics Design Stack Exchange (or other Stack Exchange sites) because I feel it's more coding related, and perhaps more useful for people who will search here in the future. Apologies if it's posted on the wrong site.
A tricky part of your question is what you mean by "inserting the skeleton". Typically bone data is very separate from your geometry, and stored in different places in your scene graph (with the bone data being hierarchical in nature).
There are file formats you can export to where you might establish some association between your geometry and skeleton, but that's very format-specific as to how you associate the two together (ex: FBX vs. Collada).
Probably the closest thing to "inserting" or, more appropriately, "attaching" a skeleton to a mesh is skinning. There you compute weight assignments, basically determining how much each bone influences a given vertex in your mesh.
This is a tough part to get right (both programmatically and artistically), and depending on your quality needs, is often a semi-automatic solution at best for the highest quality needs (commercial games, films, etc.) with artists laboring over tweaking the resulting weight assignments and/or skeleton.
There are algorithms that get pretty sophisticated in determining these weight assignments ranging from simple heuristics like just assigning weights based on nearest line distance (very crude, and will often fall apart near tricky areas like the pelvis or shoulder) or ones that actually consider the mesh as a solid volume (using voxels or tetrahedral representations) to try to assign weights. Example: http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/11/volumetric-heat-diffusion-skinning/
However, you might be able to get decent results using an algorithm like delta mush which allows you to get a bit sloppy with weight assignments but still get reasonably smooth deformations.
Now if you want to do this externally, pretty much any 3D animation software will do, including free ones like Blender. However, skinning and character animation in general is something that tends to take quite a bit of artistic skill and a lot of patience, so it's worth noting that it's not quite as easy as it might seem to make characters leap and dance and crouch and run and still look good even when you have a skeleton in advance. That weight association from skeleton to geometry is the toughest part. It's often the result of many hours of artists laboring over the deformations to get them to look right in a wide range of poses.
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 trying to develop an app which allows you to walk around, and where you walked will be drawn on a map. I have this all working fine, but I'm finding that even with a reasonably accurate GPS location the points still jump around a bit. When drawn on a map this has the effect of creating a squiggly or zig-zag line.
I'm looking for suggestions/strategies on how to smooth the data, so that the line drawn on the map is more of a smooth best fit, rather than an accurate point to point drawing.
There are many different types of smoothing algorithms you could apply to the data (for a few starting points, see this Wikipedia article). The only way to know for sure which is/are suitable for your application is to implement and test them.
Simple or weighted moving averages are fairly common (taking the last n samples and averaging them), but have the problem of lagging behind the data. A common one for filtering signal noise is a high-pass filter, which attenuates small (noisy) movements while passing through larger ones. Apple has some code for this in their AccelerometerGraph sample.
I'd suggest trying those out first as they're easy to implement, before looking at the move complex ones.