I would like to add terrain to my project, which uses OSG.
I've read osgTerrain documentation. As I understand from it's interface, it treats data as uniform height field -- grid of heights.
I want terrain to be non-uniform. It would be represented as triangulation wuth height specified at vertices.
Does osgTerrain supports this out of the box? Or should I implement myself, deriving from Layer? Where to find extensive docs? Where to start from?
osgTerrain at one point, through the VPB tool, supported irregular triangulated terrain models. There's nothing in OSG itself that prevents you from doing this still. However, I must question your reasons for doing so. Are you looking for performance? The reason osg uses regular heightfields now is that with modern GPUs, they're just as fast as the old indexed triangles. Are you planning on doing some modifications to the terrain at runtime that requires a irregular mesh?
Also, you might consider osgEarth. It is sort of the replacement terrain subsystem for OSG. It is much more feature-filled than osgTerrain. It uses quadtrees of regular grids too though.
Related
This is entirely a theoretical question because I understand the time it would take to do such a thing would be ridiculous
I've been working with "voxels" a lot lately and the only way I can display them to a user is to either triangulate the visible surfaces or make a CPU ray-tracer but both come with their own problems.
Simply put, if we dismiss the storage space needed for voxel meshs and targeted a very specific GPU would someone who was wanting to create a graphics API like OpenGL but with "true" voxel primitives that don't need to be converted be able to make such thing or are GPUs designed specifically for triangles with no way to introduce a new base primitive?
Its possible and it was already done many times
games like Minecraft,SpaceEngineers...
3D printing tools and slicers
MRI/PET scans tools
Yes rendering on GPU is possible with the two base methods you mention. Games usually use the transform to boundary representation 3D geometry. With rise of shaders even ray tracers are now possible here mine:
simple GLSL voxel ray tracer
using native OpenGL architecture and passing geometry as 3D texture. In order to obtain speed you need to add BVH or similar spatial subdivision of geometry...
However voxel based tools have been here for quite some time. For example many isometric games/engines are voxel based (tile is a voxel) like this one:
Improving performance of click detection on a staggered column isometric grid
Also do you remember UFO ? It was playable on x286 and it was also "voxel/tile" based isometric.
I am using OpenCascade to import STEP/IGES as meshes in my software. Works nicely.
But I need small triangles, and the one I get are sometimes very large (in flat area), or very elongated (eg. when meshing a cylinder). The best would be to split triangle's edge bigger than some absolute value. Avoiding T vertices, too.
I was'nt able to google anything about that... So, currently, I pass the mesh to OpenMesh, apply the OpenMesh::Subdivider::Uniform::LongestEdgeT operator, then pass it back to my software. Tedious and costly when I manage several M triangles...
Questions:
Is there an equivalent in OpenCascade ?
Or a simple code snipet to implement my own loop to do so ?
Thanks !
The meshing algorithm BRepMesh_IncrementalMesh coming with Open CASCADE Technology is mainly focused on two usage scenarios:
Visualization in 3D Viewer. Large and prolonged triangles make no harm to presentation, as vertex normals ensure proper smooth shading. Deflection parameters allows managing presentation quality.
Computing Algorithms using triangulation as approximation (to speed up calculations compared to the same algorithm working on exact geometry). In this case, deflection parameters determine the target precision of the algorithm. Large and prolonged triangles should not cause problems here, as deviation from exact geometry is controlled by meshing parameters.
There are, however, some categories of algorithms, where shape of mesh element is very important. Solvers (numerical simulation) make one of such categories, where unfortunate mesh elements may cause numerical instability or other issues. What exactly matters / cause issues depend on specific algorithm - this may include element skewness, element aspect ratio, element size and elements grid. Some solvers work much better on quads rather than on triangles.
If you take a look onto meshing result of BRepMesh_IncrementalMesh algorithm, you may notice that not only large prolonged triangles, but entire mesh structure is somewhat suboptimal for solver algorithms:
There are several options you may consider:
Triangulation refinement algorithm. Such algorithm processes existing triangulation and tries healing some properties like skewness. This what does OpenMesh from your question, I suppose. Such postprocessing algorithm might give satisfactory results at good performance, but final result will dramatically depend on properties of original meshing algorithm. For the moment, OCCT doesn't have any refinement tool, although it is possible writing such algorithm on your own (I cannot give you a small code snippet, because such algorithm is not that small an trivial as it may look from a first glance).
Consider alternative meshing algorithm. Probably incomplete list:
Express Mesh by Open Cascade (hence, working directly on OCCT shapes). This tool generates triangulation having nice grid-alike structure (for smooth surfaces), configurable element size and quad-dominant generation option. This is a commercial product though.
Netgen mesher. This open source tool provides bindings to OCCT, and although it is focused on 3D tetrahedral mesh generation, it may be also used for generating a common triangular mesh. I cannot say something good about this tool - it was rather slow and unstable when I've seen its work many years ago.
MeshGems surface meshing. Another commercial tool providing an interface to OCCT. Never worked with this product, so cannot share any opinion on it.
Consider improving BRepMesh_IncrementalMesh. As OCCT is an open source framework, you may consider extending its meshing algorithm with more parameters and contribute to the project.
I have a very fine mesh (STL) of some organic shapes (e.g., a bone) and would like to convert it to a few patches of NURBS, which will be much smoother with reasonable simplification.
I can do this manually with Solidworks ScanTo3D function, but it is not scriptable. It's a pain when I need to do hundreds of them.
Would there be a way to automate it, e.g., with some open source libraries available? I am perfectly fine with quite some loss in accuracy. I use mainly Python, but I don't mind if it is in other languages and I can work my way around it.
Note that one thing I'd like to avoid is to convert an STL of 10,000 triangles to a NURBS with 10,000 patches. I'd like to automatically (programmatically, could be with some parameter tunings) divide the mesh into a few patches and then fit it. Again, I'm perfect fine with quite some loss in accuracy.
Converting an arbitrary mesh to nurbs is not easy in general. What is a good nurbs surface for a given mesh depends on the use case. Do you want to manually edit the nurbs surface afterwards? Should symmetric structures or other features be recognized and represented correctly in the nurbs body? Is it important to keep the volume of the body? Are there boundary lines that should not be simplified as they change the appearance or angles that must be kept?
If you just want to smooth the mesh or reduce the amount of vertices there are easier ways like mesh reduction and mesh smoothing.
If you require your output to be nurbs there are different methods leading to different topologies and approximations like indicated above. A commonly used method for object simplification is to register the mesh to some handmade prototype and then perform some smaller changes to shape the specific instance. If there are for example several classes of shapes like bones, hearts, livers etc. it might be possible to model a prototype nurbs body for each class once which defines the average appearance and topology of that organ. Each instance of a class can then be converted to a nurbs by fitting the prototype to that instance. As the topology is fixed the optimization problem is reduced to the problem where we need to find the control points that approximate the mesh with the smallest error.Disadvantage of this method is that you have to create a prototype for each class. The advantage is that the topology will be nice and easily editable.
Another approach would be to first smooth the mesh and reduce the polygon count (there are libraries available for mesh reduction) and then simply converting each triangle/ quad to a nurbs patch (like the Rhino MeshToNurb Command). This method should be easier to implement but the resulting nurbs body could have an ugly topology.
If one of this methods is applicable really depends on what you want to do with your transformed data.
For the sake of theory (and general understanding),
I would like to understand in a moderately exhaustive list of all the things that must be done in order to create a "modern" 3D Game Engine (from a coder's perspective)
I seem to have a hard time finding this information anywhere else, so I think that you guys at Stack overflow will have the knowledge I seek.
In terms of "moderately exhaustive", I mean such things as a general explanation of the design stages of such engine, such as Binary Space Partitioning, then actual implementation of such an engine, and the uses of the software ( it would be helpful if the means of rendering other than BSP could be explained).
I don't want to make a 3D Engine, but simply understand what sheer amount of effort is required to make one.
Focusing on 3D rendering alone:
Binary space partitioning, like many elements of 3d rendering, is optional. In this case, it is an optimization, allowing the computer to do less work to render a scene, by cutting out invisible sections.
At its core, rendering is simply a five stage process. First, a list of triangles is generated. Next, the triangles are converted from 3-space to 2-space using matrix multiplication. Next, the triangles are filled in with pixels and meta information. Finally, the pixels are shaded individually using the meta-information. Extra finally, the pixels are drawn to the screen.
Most of those steps are partially or wholly done by a graphics card, meaning the programmer's job is to tell the card which step to perform and provide the input data.
This bare bones engine is not even close to a modern engine, however. Modern engines will be filled with optimizations like binary space partitioning, mesh simplification, background loading and texture compression. They will also be filled with special features like shadows, mirrors, mist and particle effects.
Modern engines have to be able to load and interpret textures and meshes, and in some cases, deform and modify both at runtime. The most common example would be interpolating between keyframes.
Engines may need to interact with game logic modules in order to reuse data for collision detection. Collision detection being the thing that determines if bullets hit something and also the thing that makes makes walls and floors real.
Until this moment I've only implemented all the effects in GLSL shaders using inputs, outputs and uniforms, except for a couple of really essential constants like gl_Position, etc. I've read several tutorials, had a lecture on computer graphics and everytime all they implement things by looking at physical model and calculating all the stuff using input values and uniforms. That is a kind of the way I thought it all works.
Now I faced the fact, that there are much more GLSL things, like glLight* API functions and gl_LightSource, gl_Texture constants in GLSL with a big set of light types and lighting models predefined. Seems to be a kind of different way of programming shaders.
I wonder if there are any advantages/disadvantages using one or other way? Did I miss something very important? It looks I'm doing a lot of redundant work.
All the glLight* calls you might find in both GLSL and the OpenGL API are from the old and deprecated fixed-function pipeline!
Now you must do all the calculations yourself through Shaders, as I can guess you're already doing.
Why did they "remove" all the awesome stuff?
They "removed" (deprecated) the Matrix Stack, Light calls, Immediate Mode Rendering, etc. etc. etc. and the list goes one for various reason. But the overall reason is that it's better to implement and control those things yourself.
It requires more work from our side implementing and controlling all those things, though you're in total control of everything and when you actually want to use something.
Using the fixed-function pipeline OpenGL would allocate and load various things you might never even wanted to use.
Also when talking about the Matrix Stack as an example, you would usually (the lazy way) make OpenGL re-calculate the Matrix Stack each render call, using the old glPushMatrix(), glPopMatrix(), glTranslate*(), etc. functions. Now because YOU HAVE TO, you are forced to do all those calculations and handling the Matrices yourself. So now you would realize that most of the Matrices and much more could simply be allocated and calculated once, or atleast not every render call.
Of course they didn't deprecated Immediate Mode Rendering, because we need to implement that ourselves, now we simply need to use Buffers, because they are so much better in every way.
Extra
If you want a great spreadsheet that shows which function are deprecated and which are core functions, and extension functions, etc. Then take a look here, though be aware that this spreadsheet is made by people who use OpenGL and not by the Khronos Group (current developers of OpenGL) nor Silicon Graphics (the creators of OpenGL).
Ignore glLightXXX functions, the related gl_LightXXX variables and all the documentation associated with them. It's all deprecated and if you look closely at the docs, you'll probably that it's several years old or specifically designed for versions of OpenGL <= 2.x. Instead continue to work with your own vertex attributes and set up lighting configuration in your own uniforms however you please based on the model of lighting you want to implement. It's more work, but it's more flexible in the long run.
The OpenGL lighting model that uses glLight pre-dates the programmable shader pipeline, and represent a particular way of doing lighting in the fixed function pipeline.
Once GLSL entered the scene it was possible to use the OpenGL lighting model in conjunction with shaders. You could use the same glLight function and it's related functions to set up your lighting parameters but then write shaders that used the same information in different ways, allowing per-pixel lighting calculations.
Textures are a little more murky, because OpenGL still has a texture model and many of the GL functions relating to textures are still valid, though some are deprecated. However, any documentation that refers to GLSL variables like gl_Texture is similarly out of date. Current OpenGL uses sampler objects for texture access.
If you want to make sure you're doing it the 'modern' way, make sure you create a forward-compatible OpenGL profile of 3.3 or higher or 4.0 or higher, and make sure your shaders declare the appropriate version number as their first line like so:
#version 330
This will cause the use of any deprecated OpenGL function or deprecated shader variable to generate an error so that you know to avoid them.
Current graphics hardware offers an interface to customize any rendering step e.g Vertex Shading, Tesselation, Geometry shading, fragment shading and so on. GLSL is the language to programm or influence the rendering steps of the graphics hardware leveraging this interface.
The predefined function glLight, glTexture and so on belong to the deprecated fixed
graphics pipeline of opengl. Modern OpenGL still supports the functions of this fixed pipeline but it ist strongly recommended to use GLSL for the different rendering steps.
The glLight function is a fixed function which just influences Vertex Processing. So you can just achieve a per vertex shading, which not looks very realistic.
When you programm the lighting on your own within the fragment shader using GLSL you can directly influence any pixel.
So to summarize the main advantage is that a programmer is more flexible and is able to influence every kind of rendering step, which enables you to achieve sophisticated and realistic 3d graphics. The main disadvantage is. You need much more knowledge and (GLSL, graphics pipeline) and much more programming effort to achieve the same result as with fixed functions.
Best regards