Ok, so I was planning on learning a little bit about java2d graphics and the java3d API and was wondering if there was any relation between the popular libraries and the raw Java API. I would like to get a good background on wth OpenGL is and try to learn the basics of the Java API before I go exploring into Game libraries and engines.
Thanks for the help in advance,
StoneAgeProgrammer
No, game libraries don't use Java 2D or Java 3D for performance reasons.
Java 2D/Java 3D are general-purpose abstractions, which means that they sacrifice some performance in order to be easier to use, but for a lot of games performance is really important.
Related
I want to create a application which converts 2d-images/video into a 3d model. While researching on it i found out similar application like Trnio, Scann3D, Qlone,and few others(Though few of them provide poor output 3D model). I also find out about a technology launched by the microsoft research called mobileFusion which showed the same vision i was hoping for my application but these apps were non like that.
Creating a 3D modelling app is complex task, and achieving it to a high standard requires a lot of studying. To point you in the right direction, you most likely want to perform something called Structure-from-Motion(SfM) or Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM).
If you want to program this yourself OpenCV is a good place to start if you know C++ or Python. A typical pipeline involves; feature extraction and matching, camera pose estimation, triangulation and then optimised using a bundle adjustment. All pipelines for SfM and SLAM follow these general steps (with exceptions of course). All of these steps are possible is OpenCV although Googles Ceres Solver is an excellent open-source bundle adjustment. SfM generally goes onto dense matching which is where you get very dense point clouds which are good for creating meshes. A free open-source pipeline for this is OpenSfM. Another good source for tools is OpenMVG which has all of the tools you need to make a full pipeline.
SLAM is similar to SfM, however, has more of a focus on real-time application and less on absolute accuracy. Applications for this is more centred around robotics where a robot wants to know where it is relative to its environment, but it not so concerned on absolute accuracy. The top SLAM algorithms are ORB-SLAM and LSD-SLAM. Both are open-source and free for you to implement into your own software.
So really it depends what you want... SfM for high accuracy, SLAM for real-time. If you want a good 3D model I would recommend using existing algorithms as they are very good.
The best commercial software in my opinion... Agisoft Photoscan. If you can make anything half as good as this i'd be very impressed. To answer your question what resources will you require. In my opinion, python/c++ skills, the ability to google well and a spare time to read up on photogrammetry and SfM properly.
Is it possible to get same level of photorealism with SceneKit as Unreal Engine 4? What are some examples
of photorealism on SceneKit or Metal2?
Is it possible to get same level of photorealism with SceneKit as Unreal Engine 4?
No.
Some will say this is subjective. No. Photorealism and its degrees aren't subjective.
Some will say "it depends" and list off many criteria that favour the idea that this might be the case. It's not. Pound for pound, cycle for cycle, Unreal engine is in an entirely different league of 3D rendering quality, functionality, performance and features.
When it comes to the volume of users, shader support and experimentation, pace of development, exploration of rendering technologies and all other contributing factors, Unreal engine is an order of magnitude better off.
More importantly, Unreal engine is open source, and those above users and their specialists have defined, refined and iterated upon what the engine can do, and will continue improving it. This continuous cycle of improvement will never be caught by Scene Kit.
I've been out of the modeling biz, so to speak, for a while now. When I was in college, most of the models I worked with were written in FORTRAN, which I never liked. I'm looking to get back into science, so I'm wondering if there are modern languages with feature sets suited for this kind of application. What would you consider to be an optimal language for simulating complex physics systems?
While certainly Fortran was the absolute ruler for this, Python is being used more and more exactly for this purpose. While it is very hard to say which is the BEST program for this, I've found python pretty useful for physics simulations and physics education.
It depends on the task
C++ is good at complicated data structures, but it is bad at slicing and multiply matrices. (This task equires you to spend a lot of time writing for loops.)
FORTRAN has a nice notation for slicing and multiplying matrices, but it is clumsy for creating complicated data structure such as graphs and linked lists.
Python/scipy has a nice notation for everything, but python is an interepreted language, so it is slow at certain tasks.
Some people are interested in languages like CUDA that allow you to use your GPU to speed up your simulations.
In the molecular dynamics community c++ seems to be popular, because you need somewhat complicated data structures to represent the shapes of the molecules.
I think it's arguable that FORTRAN is still dominant when it comes to solving large-scale problems in physics, as long as we're talking about serial calculations.
I know that parallelization is changing the game. I'm less certain about whether or not parallelized versions of LINPACK and other linear algebra packages are still written in FORTRAN.
A lot of engineers are using MATLAB and Mathematica these days, because they combine numerical and graphics capabilities.
I'd also point out that there's a difference between calculation and display engines. The former might still be written in FORTRAN, but the latter may be using more modern languages and OpenGL.
I'm also unsure about how much modeling has crept into biology. Physical chemistry might be a very different animal altogether.
If you write a terrific parallel linear algebra package in Scala or F# or Haskell that performs well, the world will beat a path to your door.
Python + Matplotlib + NumPy + α
The nuclear/particle/high energy physics community has moved heavily toward c++ (in part due to ROOT and Geant4), with some interest in Python (because it has ROOT bindings).
But you'll note that this is sub-discipline dependent..."physics" and "modeling" are big, broad topics, so there is no one answer.
Modelica is a specialized language for modeling (and simulating) physical systems. OpenModelica is an open source implementation of Modelica.
Python is very popular among science-oriented people, as is Matlab. The issue with these is that they are both VERY slow (to run). If you want to do large simulations that may take minutes/hours/days, you're going to have to pick another language.
As long as you are picking a language for speed, suck it up and use C/C++, maybe with CUDA depending on your needs.
Final thought though: if it takes you two days longer to write and debug your model in C than in python, and the resulting code takes 10 minutes to run instead of an hour, have your really saved any time?
There's also a lot of capability with MATLAB. Especially when interfacing your simulations with hardware, or if you need your results visualised.
I'll chime in with Python but you should also look to R for any statistical work you may need to do. You should really be asking more about what packages for which languages to use rather than the language itself.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm a beginner in game development and game programming. I have experience in computer graphics - mainly OpenGL
In those days Finally, I have some spare time to polish my game coding skills.
But when coming to program a simple 3d game, I couldn't find any good resource for free textures and models for 3d graphics (for 2d game for example, I found many resources for sprite sheets and so on).
Is there any good resource you're familiar with for 3d game textures/models?
This is not a programming queston.
As far as I know, good, free and high-quality modeling resources does not exist (from "good", "free" and "high-quality", select two).
There are multiple free model repositories, but quality of content is generally poor, and there are few places where you can buy models.
There are free textures in multiple places (like this one), and they are easier to find than good free models.
Also, most of free content frequently includes some kind of catch - "non-commercial use only", "creative commons share alike"(i.e. if you make derivative, it should use same license), or it is under GPL.
Anyway, if you're okay with "Creative Commons share alike" and GPL, then you can probably use content from some of opensource games (OpenArena ), and get quite a lot of textures from wikipedia or wikimedia commons, flickr, and you can google for "free textures". You should be careful about using content from opensource games - some opensource projects (like war$ow and sauerbraten) use closed-source/restricted licenses for game content (i.e. you're free to reuse modify engine, but you cannot modify game content and you cannot use it with modified engine. Reasons are pretty obvious).
Anyway, it depends on what kind of model you want. It is pretty easy to find "easy" stuff like boxes, barrels, etc, because everyone can do that. When it comes to guns and vehicles, there will be a trouble - quality will drop, and number of good models will decrease. And if you want a fully rigged animated character with multiple animation, normally you can forget about it - such content is almost impossible to find. But you can probably use mods for Q3 and Q2 if you want characters (you can forget about physics in this case, though)
I'd recommend to forget about "free stuff", and try to make content yourself or hire someone to do that.
If you decide to make content yourself, then you'll need digital photo camera and (optionally) graphic tablet. You can make mediocre textures from photos (digital camera is cheap) using gimp, gimp-resynthesizer plugin, gimp-texturisze plugin, high-pass filters, etc. You can also make normal maps using blender or gimp, and there are even tutorials about extracting them from photos (you still will need to process them by hand). Modeling and animation can be done in blender (after 1 or two weeks of training) using reference photos. Low poly modeling is pretty quick (20 minutes to make a low-poly low-quality gun, hour or two to make simple character), but texture and animation will take more (setting up animation for character can take a few hours for amateur, making one animation for character will take at least several hours as well, making texture unwrap - hour, painting texture - up to few days, depending on quality you want, available reference material, availability of graphic tablet, etc). It is possible to cut corners a bit - for example, for making animations, you can film motion using photo camera(or video camera), and then use it for rotoscoping. Also, you'll need to find some kind of model format blender can export to, or you'll have to write an export plugin in python.
The Blender foundation has a large model repository which may be of use.
There are some free models at Turbosquid that I use sometimes for my XNA games.
But of course, the best stuff is not free.
My experience is that there is very little in the way of quality 3d models with animation and full rigging freely available. There a few companies like this who sell suitable models cheaply and I guess most hobbyists could afford one or two models from them fairly easily which would probably be sufficient for learning. (I have no connection to them but I did buy one model pack from them which I quite liked)
It would be nice if there were a few more generally freely available 3d animated models around though. I even think it might be in the interests of some of the companies that make them to give a few away. If I'd been able to get further in my hobby projects I might have spent £100-200 in total on some nice model packs to make my project better, but due to the lack of any real 3d animated models I ended up losing interest in all my 3d projects before I got to the point of thinking maybe I'd spend a little money on this hobby. I wonder if the availability of a few more free quality models would actually significantly increase the size of the market for those companies as more people got their projects to the point where they were willing to spend a little money on it.
Some company should make a nice model pack with a few static models and a couple of fully rigged and animated humans and "monsters" and say that if the community donates £10000 they'll release them for free use. I suspect there are enough people out there who would like a few quality models they might reach this target in the same way that Blender was originally sold to the public.
I know that it's been a long time since this question was asked, but I ran into same problem when programming in XNA and I found a good solution. As long as you don't need rigged / animated models, Google Warehouse is the best place to search. As far as I know, each model submitted to Google Warehouse is available on Creative Commons license. You just need to:
Download and install Google Sketchup (Sketchup download)
Browse to find a model (Google Warehouse) - there's a 3D preview for each one!
Get a plugin to export Sketchup models to .X - I recommend the '3D RAD' plugin (3D RAD download)
If your model does not look good after the export, try to separate it into several less complex ones.
you are looking for open game art ...
http://thefree3dmodels.com/ has a multitude of free 3D models. I've used a few of these for animation purpose, maybe it'll help you too.
Initial tests indicate that GDI+ (writing in VB.NET) is not fast enough for my purposes. My application needs to be able to draw tens of thousands of particles (coloured circles, very preferably anti-aliased) in a full screen resolution at 20+ frames per second.
I'm hesitant to step away from GDI+ since I also require many of the other advanced drawing features (dash patterns, images, text, paths, fills) of GDI+.
Looking for good advice about using OpenGL, DirectX or other platforms to speed up particle rendering from within VB.NET. My app is strictly 2D.
Goodwill,
David
If you want to use VB.NET, then you can go with XNA or SlimDX.
I have some experience in creating games with GDI+ and XNA, and I can understand that GDI+ is giving you trouble.
If I where you I'd check out XNA, it's much faster than GDI+ because it actually uses your video card for drawing and it has a lot of good documentation and examples online.
SlimDX also looks good but I don't have any experience with it. SlimDX is basically the DirectX API for .NET.
The only way to get the speed you need is to move away from software rendering to hardware rendering... and unfortunately that does mean moving to OpenGL or DirectX.
The alternative is to try and optimise your graphics routines to only draw the particles that need to be drawn, not the whole screen/window.
I would agree with JaredPar that you're better off profiling first to determine if your existing codebase can be improved before making a huge switch to a new framework. DirectX is not the easiest framework if you're unfamiliar with it.
The most significant speed increase I found, when writing a game maker with GDI+, was to convert my bitmaps to Format32bppPArgb;-
SuperFastBitmap = ConvertImagePixelFormat(SlowBitmap, Imaging.PixelFormat.Format32bppPArgb)
If they are not in this format already, you'll see the difference immediately when you convert.
It's possible the problem is in your algorithm and not GDI+. Profiling is the only way to know for sure. Without a profile it's very possible you will switch to a new GUI framework and hit the exact same problems.
If you did profile, what part of GDI+ was causing a problem?
As Jared said,
it could be that a significant fraction of your cycles are not going into GDI, and you might be able to reduce those.
A simple way to find those is to halt it at random a few times and examine the stack. The chance that you will catch it in the act of wasting time is equal to the fraction of time being wasted.
Any instruction or call instruction that appears on more than one such sample is something that, if you could replace it, you would see a speedup.
In general, the method is this.
As you're working in VB.net, have you tried using WPF (Part of .net since 3.0)? As WPF is based on DirectX rather than GDI+, that should give you the speed you need, although developing WPF is not straight-forward at all.
Because the GDI+ is not moved by the graphics card, it's slow to render because it uses the CPU to render. At least, you can use DirectX or SlimDX.
(sorry for bad english)
See This: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff729480%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/159586/Starting-DirectX-with-Visual-Basic-NET