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.
My goal is to achieve something that was previously asked in this site (outside from SO). In this external site the questions is unanswered, and in order to give more visibility and to try to get an answer I translate it to here:
The issue is:
I have a small simulation of particles flowing through a wire mesh structure, and I'm interested in calculating the mass flow rate and volume fraction of particles at certain cross sections. I think I understand how to calculate mass flow rate by setting up small regions and dumping particle count and velocity from that region. I assume that volume fraction works in a similar fashion, except I only need to know the size of my particles and my dump region.
What I'm wondering is this - is it possible to do these things in Paraview? I can set up planes and slices and such, but I can't seem to extract much useful information out of them.
Further on down the road, what I would like to do would be to plot contours of volume fraction at certain planes, and plot the volume fraction along the vertical axis so I can see how high the particles are piling up on top of the screen, based on particle size, wire size, etc. Can Paraview do any of this?
This is a visualization issue. I don't know how make it with Paraview. The idea is count how much particles cross the slice.
My first approach was piped: DataReader | Spherical Glyph | Slice with normal fixed handly along z axis but nothing results. Also I tried to adding the filter Surface Flow and nothing too. Probably I am piping the data in a bad way.
To see the pipelining process I add an image (focus in PlotOverLine1 and its above pipes):
Currently I'm working on a little project just for a bit of fun. It is a C++, WinAPI application using OpenGL.
I hope it will turn into a RTS Game played on a hexagon grid and when I get the basic game engine done, I have plans to expand it further.
At the moment my application consists of a VBO that holds vertex and heightmap information. The heightmap is generated using a midpoint displacement algorithm (diamond-square).
In order to implement a hexagon grid I went with the idea explained here. It shifts down odd rows of a normal grid to allow relatively easy rendering of hexagons without too many further complications (I hope).
After a few days it is beginning to come together and I've added mouse picking, which is implemented by rendering each hex in the grid in a unique colour, and then sampling a given mouse position within this FBO to identify the ID of the selected cell (visible in the top right of the screenshot below).
In the next stage of my project I would like to look at generating more 'playable' terrains. To me this means that the shape of each hexagon should be more regular than those seen in the image above.
So finally coming to my point, is there:
A way of smoothing or adjusting the vertices in my current method
that would bring all point of a hexagon onto one plane (coplanar).
EDIT:
For anyone looking for information on how to make points coplanar here is a great explination.
A better approach to procedural terrain generation that would allow
for better control of this sort of thing.
A way to represent my vertex information in a different way that allows for this.
To be clear, I am not trying to achieve a flat hex grid with raised edges or platforms (as seen below).
)
I would like all the geometry to join and lead into the next bit.
I'm hope to achieve something similar to what I have now (relatively nice undulating hills & terrain) but with more controllable plateaus. This gives me the flexibility of cording off areas (unplayable tiles) later on, where I can add higher detail meshes if needed.
Any feedback is welcome, I'm using this as a learning exercise so please - all comments welcome!
It depends on what you actually want and what you mean by "more controlled".
Do you want to be able to say "there will be a mountain on coordinates [11, -127] with radius 20"? Complexity of this this depends on how far you want to go. If you want just mountains, then radial gradients are enough (just add the gradient values to the noise values). But if you want some more complex shapes, you are in for a treat.
I explore this idea to great depth in my project (please consider that the published version is just a prototype, which is currently undergoing major redesign, it is completely usable a map generator though).
Another way is to make the generation much more procedural - you just specify a sequence of mathematical functions, which you apply on the terrain. Even a simple value transformation can get you very far.
All of these methods should work just fine for hex grid. If artefacts occur because of the odd-row shift, then you could interpolate the odd rows instead (just calculate the height value for the vertex from the two vertices between which it is located with simple linear interpolation formula).
Consider a function, which maps the purple line into the blue curve - it emphasizes lower located heights as well as very high located heights, but makes the transition between them steeper (this example is just a cosine function, making the curve less smooth would make the transformation more prominent).
You could also only use bottom half of the curve, making peaks sharper and lower located areas flatter (thus more playable).
"sharpness" of the curve can be easily modulated with power (making the effect much more dramatic) or square root (decreasing the effect).
Implementation of this is actually extremely simple (especially if you use the cosine function) - just apply the function on each pixel in the map. If the function isn't so mathematically trivial, lookup tables work just fine (with cubic interpolation between the table values, linear interpolation creates artefacts).
Several more simple methods of "gamification" of random noise terrain can be found in this paper: "Realtime Synthesis of Eroded Fractal Terrain for Use in Computer Games".
Good luck with your project
Im trying to transform a path along an arc.
My project is running on osX 10.8.2 and the painting is done via CoreAnimation in CALayers.
There is a waveform in my project which will be painted by a path. There are about 200 sample points which are mirrored to the bottom side. These are painted 60 times per second and updated to a song postion.
Please ignore the white line, it is just a rotation indicator.
What i am trying to achieve is drawing a waveform along an arc. "Up" should point to the middle. It does not need to go all the way around. The waveform should be painted along the green circle. Please take a look at the sketch provided below.
Im not sure how to achieve this in a performant manner. There are many points per second that need coordinate correction.
I tried coming up with some ideas of my own:
1) There is the possibility to add linear transformations to paths, which, i think, will not help me here. The only thing i can think of is adding a point, rotating the path with a transformation, adding another point, rotating and so on. But this would be very slow i think
2) Drawing the path into an image and bending it would surely lead to image-artifacts.
3) Maybe the best idea would be to precompute sample points on an arc, then save save a vector to the center. Taking the y-coordinates of the waveform, placing them on the sample points and moving them along the vector to the center.
But maybe i am just not seeing some kind of easy solution to this problem. Help is really appreciated and fresh ideas very welcome. Thank you in advance!
IMHO, the most efficient way to go (in terms of CPU usage) would be to use some form of pre-computed approach that would take into account the resolution of the display.
Cleverly precomputed values
I would go for the mathematical transformation (from linear to polar) and combine two facts:
There is no need to perform expansive mathematical computation
There is no need to render two points that are too close from each other
I have no ready-made algorithm for you, but you could use a pre-computed sin or cos table, and match the data range to the display size in order to work with integers.
For instance imagine we have some data ranging from 0 to 1E6 and we need to display the sin value of each point in a 100 pix height rectangle. We can use a pre-computed sin table and work with integers. This way displaying the sin value of a point would be much quicker. This concept can be refined to get a nicer result.
Also, there are some ways to retain only significant points of a curve so that the displayed curve actually looks like the original (see the Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm on wikipedia). But I found it to be inefficient for quickly displaying ever-changing data.
Using multicore rendering
You could compute different areas of the curve using multiple cores (can be tricky)
Or you could use pre-computing using several cores, and one core to do finish the job.
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.