Search Results

Search found 16410 results on 657 pages for 'game component'.

Page 317/657 | < Previous Page | 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324  | Next Page >

  • Terrain sqaure loading

    - by AndroidXTr3meN
    Games like Skyrim, Morrowind, and more are using quads or sqaure to divide the terrain if im correct. The player is always at #5 1 | 2 | 3 4 | 5 | 6 7 | 8 | 9 So whenever you cross the border you unload and load the new "areas" But if the user goes just over the edge and then the second after goes back previous area a lot of uneccessary loading and unloading is done. Is there a general approach to this becuase I dont think games like skyrim have this issue? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • 2D metaball liquid effect - how to feed output of one rendering pass as input to another shader

    - by Guye Incognito
    I'm attempting to make a shader for unity3d web project. I want to implement something like in the great answer by DMGregory in this question. in order to achieve a final look something like this.. Its metaballs with specular and shading. The steps to make this shader are. 1. Convert the feathered blobs into a heightmap. 2. Generate a normalmap from the heightmap 3. Feed the normal map and height map into a standard unity shader, for instance transparent parallax specular. I pretty much have all the pieces I need assembled but I am new to shaders and need help putting them together I can generate a heightmap from the blobs using some fragment shader code I wrote (I'm just using the red channel here cus i dont know if you can access the brightness) half4 frag (v2f i) : COLOR{ half4 texcol,finalColor; texcol = tex2D (_MainTex, i.uv); finalColor=_MyColor; if(texcol.r<_botmcut) { finalColor.r= 0; } else if((texcol.r>_topcut)) { finalColor.r= 0; } else { float r = _topcut-_botmcut; float xpos = _topcut - texcol.r; finalColor.r= (_botmcut + sqrt((xpos*xpos)-(r*r)))/_constant; } return finalColor; } turns these blobs.. into this heightmap Also I've found some CG code that generates a normal map from a height map. The bit of code that makes the normal map from finite differences is here void surf (Input IN, inout SurfaceOutput o) { o.Albedo = fixed3(0.5); float3 normal = UnpackNormal(tex2D(_BumpMap, IN.uv_MainTex)); float me = tex2D(_HeightMap,IN.uv_MainTex).x; float n = tex2D(_HeightMap,float2(IN.uv_MainTex.x,IN.uv_MainTex.y+1.0/_HeightmapDimY)).x; float s = tex2D(_HeightMap,float2(IN.uv_MainTex.x,IN.uv_MainTex.y-1.0/_HeightmapDimY)).x; float e = tex2D(_HeightMap,float2(IN.uv_MainTex.x-1.0/_HeightmapDimX,IN.uv_MainTex.y)).x; float w = tex2D(_HeightMap,float2(IN.uv_MainTex.x+1.0/_HeightmapDimX,IN.uv_MainTex.y)).x; float3 norm = normal; float3 temp = norm; //a temporary vector that is not parallel to norm if(norm.x==1) temp.y+=0.5; else temp.x+=0.5; //form a basis with norm being one of the axes: float3 perp1 = normalize(cross(norm,temp)); float3 perp2 = normalize(cross(norm,perp1)); //use the basis to move the normal in its own space by the offset float3 normalOffset = -_HeightmapStrength * ( ( (n-me) - (s-me) ) * perp1 + ( ( e - me ) - ( w - me ) ) * perp2 ); norm += normalOffset; norm = normalize(norm); o.Normal = norm; } Also here is the built-in transparent parallax specular shader for unity. Shader "Transparent/Parallax Specular" { Properties { _Color ("Main Color", Color) = (1,1,1,1) _SpecColor ("Specular Color", Color) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0) _Shininess ("Shininess", Range (0.01, 1)) = 0.078125 _Parallax ("Height", Range (0.005, 0.08)) = 0.02 _MainTex ("Base (RGB) TransGloss (A)", 2D) = "white" {} _BumpMap ("Normalmap", 2D) = "bump" {} _ParallaxMap ("Heightmap (A)", 2D) = "black" {} } SubShader { Tags {"Queue"="Transparent" "IgnoreProjector"="True" "RenderType"="Transparent"} LOD 600 CGPROGRAM #pragma surface surf BlinnPhong alpha #pragma exclude_renderers flash sampler2D _MainTex; sampler2D _BumpMap; sampler2D _ParallaxMap; fixed4 _Color; half _Shininess; float _Parallax; struct Input { float2 uv_MainTex; float2 uv_BumpMap; float3 viewDir; }; void surf (Input IN, inout SurfaceOutput o) { half h = tex2D (_ParallaxMap, IN.uv_BumpMap).w; float2 offset = ParallaxOffset (h, _Parallax, IN.viewDir); IN.uv_MainTex += offset; IN.uv_BumpMap += offset; fixed4 tex = tex2D(_MainTex, IN.uv_MainTex); o.Albedo = tex.rgb * _Color.rgb; o.Gloss = tex.a; o.Alpha = tex.a * _Color.a; o.Specular = _Shininess; o.Normal = UnpackNormal(tex2D(_BumpMap, IN.uv_BumpMap)); } ENDCG } FallBack "Transparent/Bumped Specular" }

    Read the article

  • Unity - Invert Movement Direction

    - by m41n
    I am currently developing a 2,5D Sidescroller in Unity (just starting to get to know it). Right now I added a turn-script to have my character face the appropriate direction of movement, though something with the movement itself is behaving oddly now. When I press the right arrow key, the character moves and faces towards the right. If I press the left arrow key, the character faces towards the left, but "moon-walks" to the right. I allready had enough trouble getting the turning to work, so what I am trying is to find a simple solution, if possible without too much reworking of the rest of my project. I was thinking of just inverting the movement direction for a specific input-key/facing-direction. So if anyone knows how to do something like that, I'd be thankful for the help. If it helps, the following is the current part of my "AnimationChooser" script to handle the turning: Quaternion targetf = Quaternion.Euler(0, 270, 0); // Vector3 Direction when facing frontway Quaternion targetb = Quaternion.Euler(0, 90, 0); // Vector3 Direction when facing opposite way if (Input.GetAxisRaw ("Vertical") < 0.0f) // if input is lower than 0 turn to targetf { transform.rotation = Quaternion.Lerp(transform.rotation, targetf, Time.deltaTime * smooth); } if (Input.GetAxisRaw ("Vertical") > 0.0f) // if input is higher than 0 turn to targetb { transform.rotation = Quaternion.Lerp(transform.rotation, targetb, Time.deltaTime * smooth); } The Values (270 and 90) and Axis are because I had to turn my model itself in the very first place to face towards any of the movement directions.

    Read the article

  • What is the correct and most efficient approach of streaming vertex data?

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Usually, I do this in my current OpenGL ES project (for iOS): Initialization: Create two VBO's and one IndexBuffer (since I will use the same indices), same size. Create two VAO's and configure them, both bound to the same Index Buffer. Each frame: Choose a VBO/VAO couple. (Different from the previous frame, so I'm alternating.) Bind that VBO Upload new data using glBufferSubData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, ...). Bind the VAO Render my stuff using glDrawElements(GL_***, ...); Unbind the VAO However, someone told me to avoid uploading data (step 3) and render immediately the new data (step 5). I should avoid this, because the glDrawElements call will stall until the buffer is effectively uploaded to VRAM. So he suggested to draw all my geometry I uploaded the previous frame and upload in the current frame what will be drawn in the next frame. Thus, everything is rendered with the delay of one frame. Is this true or am I using the good approach to work with streaming vertex data? (I do know that the pipeline will stall the other way around. Ie: when you draw and immediately try to change the buffer data. But I'm not doing that, since I implemented double buffering.)

    Read the article

  • Splitting Graph into distinct polygons in O(E) complexity

    - by Arthur Wulf White
    If you have seen my last question: trapped inside a Graph : Find paths along edges that do not cross any edges How do you split an entire graph into distinct shapes 'trapped' inside the graph(like the ones described in my last question) with good complexity? What I am doing now is iterating over all edges and then starting to traverse while always taking the rightmost turn. This does split the graph into distinct shapes. Then I eliminate all the excess shapes (that are repeats of previous shapes) and return the result. The complexity of this algorithm is O(E^2). I am wondering if I could do it in O(E) by removing edges I already traversed previously. My current implementation of that returns unexpected results.

    Read the article

  • Most efficient way to handle coordinate maps in Java

    - by glowcoder
    I have a rectangular tile-based layout. It's your typical Cartesian system. I would like to have a single class that handles two lookup styles Get me the set of players at position X,Y Get me the position of player with key K My current implementation is this: class CoordinateMap<V> { Map<Long,Set<V>> coords2value; Map<V,Long> value2coords; // convert (int x, int y) to long key - this is tested, works for all values -1bil to +1bil // My map will NOT require more than 1 bil tiles from the origin :) private Long keyFor(int x, int y) { int kx = x + 1000000000; int ky = y + 1000000000; return (long)kx | (long)ky << 32; } // extract the x and y from the keys private int[] coordsFor(long k) { int x = (int)(k & 0xFFFFFFFF) - 1000000000; int y = (int)((k >>> 32) & 0xFFFFFFFF) - 1000000000; return new int[] { x,y }; } } From there, I proceed to have other methods that manipulate or access the two maps accordingly. My question is... is there a better way to do this? Sure, I've tested my class and it works fine. And sure, something inside tells me if I want to reference the data by two different keys, I need two different maps. But I can also bet I'm not the first to run into this scenario. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to draw texture to screen in Unity?

    - by user1306322
    I'm looking for a way to draw textures to screen in Unity in a similar fashion to XNA's SpriteBatch.Draw method. Ideally, I'd like to write a few helper methods to make all my XNA code work in Unity. This is the first issue I've faced on this seemingly long journey. I guess I could just use quads, but I'm not so sure it's the least expensive way performance-wise. I could do that stuff in XNA anyway, but they made SpriteBatch not without a reason, I believe.

    Read the article

  • Per-pixel displacement mapping GLSL

    - by Chris
    Im trying to implement a per-pixel displacement shader in GLSL. I read through several papers and "tutorials" I found and ended up with trying to implement the approach NVIDIA used in their Cascade Demo (http://www.slideshare.net/icastano/cascades-demo-secrets) starting at Slide 82. At the moment I am completly stuck with following problem: When I am far away the displacement seems to work. But as more I move closer to my surface, the texture gets bent in x-axis and somehow it looks like there is a little bent in general in one direction. EDIT: I added a video: click I added some screen to illustrate the problem: Well I tried lots of things already and I am starting to get a bit frustrated as my ideas run out. I added my full VS and FS code: VS: #version 400 layout(location = 0) in vec3 IN_VS_Position; layout(location = 1) in vec3 IN_VS_Normal; layout(location = 2) in vec2 IN_VS_Texcoord; layout(location = 3) in vec3 IN_VS_Tangent; layout(location = 4) in vec3 IN_VS_BiTangent; uniform vec3 uLightPos; uniform vec3 uCameraDirection; uniform mat4 uViewProjection; uniform mat4 uModel; uniform mat4 uView; uniform mat3 uNormalMatrix; out vec2 IN_FS_Texcoord; out vec3 IN_FS_CameraDir_Tangent; out vec3 IN_FS_LightDir_Tangent; void main( void ) { IN_FS_Texcoord = IN_VS_Texcoord; vec4 posObject = uModel * vec4(IN_VS_Position, 1.0); vec3 normalObject = (uModel * vec4(IN_VS_Normal, 0.0)).xyz; vec3 tangentObject = (uModel * vec4(IN_VS_Tangent, 0.0)).xyz; //vec3 binormalObject = (uModel * vec4(IN_VS_BiTangent, 0.0)).xyz; vec3 binormalObject = normalize(cross(tangentObject, normalObject)); // uCameraDirection is the camera position, just bad named vec3 fvViewDirection = normalize( uCameraDirection - posObject.xyz); vec3 fvLightDirection = normalize( uLightPos.xyz - posObject.xyz ); IN_FS_CameraDir_Tangent.x = dot( tangentObject, fvViewDirection ); IN_FS_CameraDir_Tangent.y = dot( binormalObject, fvViewDirection ); IN_FS_CameraDir_Tangent.z = dot( normalObject, fvViewDirection ); IN_FS_LightDir_Tangent.x = dot( tangentObject, fvLightDirection ); IN_FS_LightDir_Tangent.y = dot( binormalObject, fvLightDirection ); IN_FS_LightDir_Tangent.z = dot( normalObject, fvLightDirection ); gl_Position = (uViewProjection*uModel) * vec4(IN_VS_Position, 1.0); } The VS just builds the TBN matrix, from incoming normal, tangent and binormal in world space. Calculates the light and eye direction in worldspace. And finally transforms the light and eye direction into tangent space. FS: #version 400 // uniforms uniform Light { vec4 fvDiffuse; vec4 fvAmbient; vec4 fvSpecular; }; uniform Material { vec4 diffuse; vec4 ambient; vec4 specular; vec4 emissive; float fSpecularPower; float shininessStrength; }; uniform sampler2D colorSampler; uniform sampler2D normalMapSampler; uniform sampler2D heightMapSampler; in vec2 IN_FS_Texcoord; in vec3 IN_FS_CameraDir_Tangent; in vec3 IN_FS_LightDir_Tangent; out vec4 color; vec2 TraceRay(in float height, in vec2 coords, in vec3 dir, in float mipmap){ vec2 NewCoords = coords; vec2 dUV = - dir.xy * height * 0.08; float SearchHeight = 1.0; float prev_hits = 0.0; float hit_h = 0.0; for(int i=0;i<10;i++){ SearchHeight -= 0.1; NewCoords += dUV; float CurrentHeight = textureLod(heightMapSampler,NewCoords.xy, mipmap).r; float first_hit = clamp((CurrentHeight - SearchHeight - prev_hits) * 499999.0,0.0,1.0); hit_h += first_hit * SearchHeight; prev_hits += first_hit; } NewCoords = coords + dUV * (1.0-hit_h) * 10.0f - dUV; vec2 Temp = NewCoords; SearchHeight = hit_h+0.1; float Start = SearchHeight; dUV *= 0.2; prev_hits = 0.0; hit_h = 0.0; for(int i=0;i<5;i++){ SearchHeight -= 0.02; NewCoords += dUV; float CurrentHeight = textureLod(heightMapSampler,NewCoords.xy, mipmap).r; float first_hit = clamp((CurrentHeight - SearchHeight - prev_hits) * 499999.0,0.0,1.0); hit_h += first_hit * SearchHeight; prev_hits += first_hit; } NewCoords = Temp + dUV * (Start - hit_h) * 50.0f; return NewCoords; } void main( void ) { vec3 fvLightDirection = normalize( IN_FS_LightDir_Tangent ); vec3 fvViewDirection = normalize( IN_FS_CameraDir_Tangent ); float mipmap = 0; vec2 NewCoord = TraceRay(0.1,IN_FS_Texcoord,fvViewDirection,mipmap); //vec2 ddx = dFdx(NewCoord); //vec2 ddy = dFdy(NewCoord); vec3 BumpMapNormal = textureLod(normalMapSampler, NewCoord.xy, mipmap).xyz; BumpMapNormal = normalize(2.0 * BumpMapNormal - vec3(1.0, 1.0, 1.0)); vec3 fvNormal = BumpMapNormal; float fNDotL = dot( fvNormal, fvLightDirection ); vec3 fvReflection = normalize( ( ( 2.0 * fvNormal ) * fNDotL ) - fvLightDirection ); float fRDotV = max( 0.0, dot( fvReflection, fvViewDirection ) ); vec4 fvBaseColor = textureLod( colorSampler, NewCoord.xy,mipmap); vec4 fvTotalAmbient = fvAmbient * fvBaseColor; vec4 fvTotalDiffuse = fvDiffuse * fNDotL * fvBaseColor; vec4 fvTotalSpecular = fvSpecular * ( pow( fRDotV, fSpecularPower ) ); color = ( fvTotalAmbient + (fvTotalDiffuse + fvTotalSpecular) ); } The FS implements the displacement technique in TraceRay method, while always using mipmap level 0. Most of the code is from NVIDIA sample and another paper I found on the web, so I guess there cannot be much wrong in here. At the end it uses the modified UV coords for getting the displaced normal from the normal map and the color from the color map. I looking forward for some ideas. Thanks in advance! Edit: Here is the code loading the heightmap: glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, mWidth, mHeight, 0, GL_RGBA, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, mImageData); glGenerateMipmap(GL_TEXTURE_2D); //glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR); //glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR); //glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_S, GL_REPEAT); //glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_T, GL_REPEAT); Maybe something wrong in here?

    Read the article

  • Most efficient way to implement delta time

    - by Starkers
    Here's one way to implement delta time: /// init /// var duration = 5000, currentTime = Date.now(); // and create cube, scene, camera ect ////// function animate() { /// determine delta /// var now = Date.now(), deltat = now - currentTime, currentTime = now, scalar = deltat / duration, angle = (Math.PI * 2) * scalar; ////// /// animate /// cube.rotation.y += angle; ////// /// update /// requestAnimationFrame(render); ////// } Could someone confirm I know how it works? Here what I think is going on: Firstly, we set duration at 5000, which how long the loop will take to complete in an ideal world. With a computer that is slow/busy, let's say the animation loop takes twice as long as it should, so 10000: When this happens, the scalar is set to 2.0: scalar = deltat / duration scalar = 10000 / 5000 scalar = 2.0 We now times all animation by twice as much: angle = (Math.PI * 2) * scalar; angle = (Math.PI * 2) * 2.0; angle = (Math.PI * 4) // which is 2 rotations When we do this, the cube rotation will appear to 'jump', but this is good because the animation remains real-time. With a computer that is going too quickly, let's say the animation loop takes half as long as it should, so 2500: When this happens, the scalar is set to 0.5: scalar = deltat / duration scalar = 2500 / 5000 scalar = 0.5 We now times all animation by a half: angle = (Math.PI * 2) * scalar; angle = (Math.PI * 2) * 0.5; angle = (Math.PI * 1) // which is half a rotation When we do this, the cube won't jump at all, and the animation remains real time, and doesn't speed up. However, would I be right in thinking this doesn't alter how hard the computer is working? I mean it still goes through the loop as fast as it can, and it still has render the whole scene, just with different smaller angles! So this a bad way to implement delta time, right? Now let's pretend the computer is taking exactly as long as it should, so 5000: When this happens, the scalar is set to 1.0: angle = (Math.PI * 2) * scalar; angle = (Math.PI * 2) * 1; angle = (Math.PI * 2) // which is 1 rotation When we do this, everything is timsed by 1, so nothing is changed. We'd get the same result if we weren't using delta time at all! My questions are as follows Mostly importantly, have I got the right end of the stick here? How do we know to set the duration to 5000 ? Or can it be any number? I'm a bit vague about the "computer going too quickly". Is there a way loop less often rather than reduce the animation steps? Seems like a better idea. Using this method, do all of our animations need to be timesed by the scalar? Do we have to hunt down every last one and times it? Is this the best way to implement delta time? I think not, due to the fact the computer can go nuts and all we do is divide each animation step and because we need to hunt down every step and times it by the scalar. Not a very nice DSL, as it were. So what is the best way to implement delta time? Below is one way that I do not really get but may be a better way to implement delta time. Could someone explain please? // Globals INV_MAX_FPS = 1 / 60; frameDelta = 0; clock = new THREE.Clock(); // In the animation loop (the requestAnimationFrame callback)… frameDelta += clock.getDelta(); // API: "Get the seconds passed since the last call to this method." while (frameDelta >= INV_MAX_FPS) { update(INV_MAX_FPS); // calculate physics frameDelta -= INV_MAX_FPS; } How I think this works: Firstly we set INV_MAX_FPS to 0.01666666666 How we will use this number number does not jump out at me. We then intialize a frameDelta which stores how long the last loop took to run. Come the first loop frameDelta is not greater than INV_MAX_FPS so the loop is not run (0 = 0.01666666666). So nothing happens. Now I really don't know what would cause this to happen, but let's pretend that the loop we just went through took 2 seconds to complete: We set frameDelta to 2: frameDelta += clock.getDelta(); frameDelta += 2.00 Now we run an animation thanks to update(0.01666666666). Again what is relevance of 0.01666666666?? And then we take away 0.01666666666 from the frameDelta: frameDelta -= INV_MAX_FPS; frameDelta = frameDelta - INV_MAX_FPS; frameDelta = 2 - 0.01666666666 frameDelta = 1.98333333334 So let's go into the second loop. Let's say it took 2(? Why not 2? Or 12? I am a bit confused): frameDelta += clock.getDelta(); frameDelta = frameDelta + clock.getDelta(); frameDelta = 1.98333333334 + 2 frameDelta = 3.98333333334 This time we enter the while loop because 3.98333333334 = 0.01666666666 We run update We take away 0.01666666666 from frameDelta again: frameDelta -= INV_MAX_FPS; frameDelta = frameDelta - INV_MAX_FPS; frameDelta = 3.98333333334 - 0.01666666666 frameDelta = 3.96666666668 Now let's pretend the loop is super quick and runs in just 0.1 seconds and continues to do this. (Because the computer isn't busy any more). Basically, the update function will be run, and every loop we take away 0.01666666666 from the frameDelta untill the frameDelta is less than 0.01666666666. And then nothing happens until the computer runs slowly again? Could someone shed some light please? Does the update() update the scalar or something like that and we still have to times everything by the scalar like in the first example?

    Read the article

  • How can I make the camera return to the beginning of the terrain when it reaches the end?

    - by wbaccari
    How can I make the camera return to the beginning of the terrain when it reaches the end? I tried using the ICameraSceneNode*-setPosition(). if (camera->getPosition().X>1200.f) camera->setPosition(vector3df(1.f,1550.f,camera->getPosition().Z)); if (camera->getPosition().X<0.f) camera->setPosition(vector3df(1199.f,1550.f,camera->getPosition().Z)); if (camera->getPosition().Z>1200.f) camera->setPosition(vector3df(camera->getPosition().X,1550.f,1.f)); if (camera->getPosition().Z<0.f) camera->setPosition(vector3df(camera->getPosition().X,1550.f,1199.f)); It seems to work fine with a flat terrain (one shade of grey in heightmap) but it starts to produce a strange behavior as soon as i try to add some hills. Edit: The setPosition() call seems to perform a translation of the camera toward the new position, therefore the camera stops at the first obstacle it encounters on its way.

    Read the article

  • Static "LoD" hack opinions

    - by David Lively
    I've been playing with implementing dynamic level of detail for rendering a very large mesh in XNA. It occurred to me that (duh) the whole point of this is to generate small triangles close to the camera, and larger ones far away. Given that, rather than constantly modifying or swapping index buffers based on a feature's rendered size or distance from the camera, it would be a lot easier (and potentially quite a bit faster), to render a single "fan" or flat wedge/frustum-shaped planar mesh that is tessellated into small triangles close to the near or small end of the frustum and larger ones at the far end, sort of like this (overhead view) (Pardon the gap in the middle - I drew one side and mirrored it) The triangle sizes are chosen so that all are approximately the same size when projected. Then, that mesh would be transformed to track the camera so that the Z axis (center vertical in this image) is always aligned with the view direction projected into the XZ plane. The vertex shader would then read terrain heights from a height texture and adjust the Y coordinate of the mesh to match a height field that defines the terrain. This eliminates the need for culling (since the mesh is generated to match the viewport dimensions) and the need to modify the index and/or vertex buffers when drawing the terrain. Obviously this doesn't address terrain with overhangs, etc, but that could be handled to a certain extent by including a second mesh that defines a sort of "ceiling" via a different texture. The other LoD schemes I've seen aren't particularly difficult to implement and, in some cases, are a lot more flexible, but this seemed like a decent quick-and-dirty way to handle height map-based terrain without getting into geometry manipulation. Has anyone tried this? Opinions?

    Read the article

  • Mapping a 3D texture to a standard hollow-hull 3D model

    - by John
    I have 3D models which are typical hollow hulls. If such a model also had a 3D volumetric/voxel texture map then given a point P inside such a model, I'd like to be able to find its uvw coordinates within the 3D texture. Is this possible by simply setting 3D texcoords on my existing mesh or does it have to be broken up into polyhedra? Is there a way to map a 3D texture onto a mesh without doing this?

    Read the article

  • Tangent basis calculation problem

    - by Kirill Daybov
    I have the problem with seams with calculating a tangent basis in my application. I'm using a seems to be right algorithm, but it gives wrong result on the seams. What am I doing wrong? Is there a problem with an algorithm, or with the model? The designer says that our models with our normal maps are rendered correctly in Xoliul Shader Plugin in 3Ds Max, so there should be a way to calculate correct tangent basis programmatically. Here's an example of the problem I'm talking about. Steps, I've already taken: - Tried different algorithm (from Gamasutra, I can't post the link because I don't have enough reputation yet). I got wrong, much worse, results; - Tried to average basis vectors for vertexes are used in multiple faces; - Tried to average basis vectors for vertexes that have same world coordinates (this would be obviously wrong solution, but I've tried it anyway).

    Read the article

  • Rotate a vector by given degrees (errors when value over 90)

    - by Ivan
    I created a function to rotate a vector by a given number of degrees. It seems to work fine when given values in the range -90 to +90. Beyond this, the amount of rotation decreases, i.e., I think objects are rotating the same amount for 80 and 100 degrees. I think this diagram might be a clue to my problem, but I don't quite understand what it's showing. Must I use a different trig function depending on the radians value? The programming examples I've been able to find look similar to mine (not varying the trig functions). Vector2D.prototype.rotate = function(angleDegrees) { var radians = angleDegrees * (Math.PI / 180); var ca = Math.cos(radians); var sa = Math.sin(radians); var rx = this.x*ca - this.y*sa; var ry = this.x*sa + this.y*ca; this.x = rx; this.y = ry; };

    Read the article

  • How do I calculate opposite of a vector, add some slack

    - by Jason94
    How can i calulate a valid range (RED) for my object's (BLACK) traveling direction (GREEN). The green is a Vector2 where x and y range is -1 to 1. What I'm trying to do here is to create rocket fuel burn effekt. So what i got is rocket speed (float) rocket direction (Vector2 x = [-1, 1], y = [-1, 1]) I may think that rocket speed does not matter as fuel burn effect (particle) is created on position with its own speed.

    Read the article

  • What's the most efficient way to find barycentric coordinates?

    - by bobobobo
    In my profiler, finding barycentric coordinates is apparently somewhat of a bottleneck. I am looking to make it more efficient. It follows the method in shirley, where you compute the area of the triangles formed by embedding the point P inside the triangle. Code: Vector Triangle::getBarycentricCoordinatesAt( const Vector & P ) const { Vector bary ; // The area of a triangle is real areaABC = DOT( normal, CROSS( (b - a), (c - a) ) ) ; real areaPBC = DOT( normal, CROSS( (b - P), (c - P) ) ) ; real areaPCA = DOT( normal, CROSS( (c - P), (a - P) ) ) ; bary.x = areaPBC / areaABC ; // alpha bary.y = areaPCA / areaABC ; // beta bary.z = 1.0f - bary.x - bary.y ; // gamma return bary ; } This method works, but I'm looking for a more efficient one!

    Read the article

  • Using multiple indexes with buffer objects in OpenTK

    - by Rushyo
    I've got multiple buffers in OpenGL holding data on position, normals and texcoords. I also have an equal number of buffers holding distinct index data for each of those buffers. I quite like this format (indvidual indexes for each buffer) utilised by COLLADA since it strikes me as optimally efficient at accessing each buffer. I've set up pointers to the relevant data arrays using VertexPointer, NormalPointer, etc however I have no way to assign pointers to the index buffers since DrawElements appear to only look at one ElementArrayBuffer. Can I utilise multiple indices some way or will I be better off using a different technique which can support this? I'd prefer to keep the distinct indices if at all possible.

    Read the article

  • Convience of mySQL over xml

    - by Bonechilla
    Currently I use XML to store specific information to correctly load a few things such as a list of specfied characters, scenes and music, Once more I use JAXB in combination with standard compression/decompression(ZIP) functionality to store a list of extrenous data. This data is called to add functionality to the character, somewhat like Skills in an RPG. Each skill is seperated into its own XML file with a grandlist which contains the names of each file with their extensions omitted and zipped in folder that gets encrypted. At first using xml was working fine however as the skill list grow i worry about its stability. I was wondering if I should begin storing the data in mySQL. Originally I planned to simply convert everything to JSON over xml but i think possibly mySQL would be a better move. Can anyone inform me of the key difference and pros and cons of each I guess i'm looking for the best way to store the data more conviently and would be easier to operate on. The data is mostly primatives and strings and the only arraylist of values i have i can just concat into a single field and parse later

    Read the article

  • Distance between two 3D objects' faces

    - by Arthur Gibraltar
    I'm really newbie on programming and I'm making some tests. I couldn't find nowhere on Internet how could I calculate the distance between two 3D objects' faces. Is there anyway? Detailing, as an example, I have two 3D cubes. Each one has a vector3 position designating it's center on the 3D space and an orientation matrix. And each cube has a size (float width, float height and float length). I could get a simple distance between them by calling Vector3.Distance(), but it doesn't consider its sizes, just the position. Then the distance would be between its centers. Is there any way to calculate the distance between the faces? Thanks for any reply.

    Read the article

  • Scanline filling of polygons that share edges and vertices

    - by Belgin
    In this picture (a perspective projection of an icosahedron), the scanline (red) intersects that vertex at the top. In an icosahedron each edge belongs to two triangles. From edge a, only one triangle is visible, the other one is in the back. Same for edge d. Also, in order to determine what color the current pixel should be, each polygon has a flag which can either be 'in' or 'out', depending upon where on the scanline we currently are. Flags are flipped according to the intersection of the scanline with the edges. Now, as we go from a to d (because all edges are intersected with the scanline at that vertex), this happens: the triangle behind triangle 1 and triangle 1 itself are set 'in', then 2 is set in and 1 is 'out', then 3 is set 'in', 2 is 'out' and finally 3 is 'out' and the one behind it is set 'in', which is not the desired behavior because we only need the triangles which are facing us to be set 'in', the rest should be 'out'. How do process the edges in the Active Edge List (a list of edges that are currently intersected by the scanline) so the right polys are set 'in'? Also, I should mention that the edges are unique, which means there exists an array of edges in the data structure of the icosahedron which are pointed to by edge pointers in each of the triangles.

    Read the article

  • What's wrong with this turn to face algorithm?

    - by Chan
    I implement a torpedo object that chases a rotating planet. Specifically, it will turn toward the planet each update. Initially my implement was: void move() { vector3<float> to_target = target - get_position(); to_target.normalize(); position += (to_target * speed); } which works perfectly for torpedo that is a solid sphere. Now my torpedo is actually a model, which has a forward vector, so using this method looks odd because it doesn't actually turn toward but jump toward. So I revised it a bit to get, double get_rotation_angle(vector3<float> u, vector3<float> v) const { u.normalize(); v.normalize(); double cosine_theta = u.dot(v); // domain of arccosine is [-1, 1] if (cosine_theta > 1) { cosine_theta = 1; } if (cosine_theta < -1) { cosine_theta = -1; } return math3d::to_degree(acos(cosine_theta)); } vector3<float> get_rotation_axis(vector3<float> u, vector3<float> v) const { u.normalize(); v.normalize(); // fix linear case if (u == v || u == -v) { v[0] += 0.05; v[1] += 0.0; v[2] += 0.05; v.normalize(); } vector3<float> axis = u.cross(v); return axis.normal(); } void turn_to_face() { vector3<float> to_target = (target - position); vector3<float> axis = get_rotation_axis(get_forward(), to_target); double angle = get_rotation_angle(get_forward(), to_target); double distance = math3d::distance(position, target); gl_matrix_mode(GL_MODELVIEW); gl_push_matrix(); { gl_load_identity(); gl_translate_f(position.get_x(), position.get_y(), position.get_z()); gl_rotate_f(angle, axis.get_x(), axis.get_y(), axis.get_z()); gl_get_float_v(GL_MODELVIEW_MATRIX, OM); } gl_pop_matrix(); move(); } void move() { vector3<float> to_target = target - get_position(); to_target.normalize(); position += (get_forward() * speed); } The logic is simple, I find the rotation axis by cross product, the angle to rotate by dot product, then turn toward the target position each update. Unfortunately, it looks extremely odds since the rotation happens too fast that it always turns back and forth. The forward vector for torpedo is from the ModelView matrix, the third column A: MODELVIEW MATRIX -------------------------------------------------- R U A T -------------------------------------------------- 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 -------------------------------------------------- Any suggestion or idea would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Java 2D Rectangle Collision? [on hold]

    - by Andreas Elia
    I am just wanting to know of another (longer OR shorter) way of getting 100% effective collisions on a 2D plat-former. The current collision system that is in place works from coords on the level and does not always work reliably. Thank you in advance for any help/support. The current system draws a rectangle and is checking to see if any two points collide. From testing, the system can sometimes "glitch" and allow the player to collide into walls etc. Player Class http://pastebin.com/2zE8vz8R Main Class http://pastebin.com/A6Utb3ti

    Read the article

  • D3D11 how to simulate multiple depth channels

    - by Nock
    Here's what I'd like to achieve: Rendering a first pass of objects in my scene, using standard depth comparison Rendering another pass of objects in the same scene, but with the following rules: A Pixel of the 2nd pass always override the first pass (no depth compare between them) Use Depth comparison between pixels written from the second pass. In English I want depth comparison made inside each pass but I always want the second pass pixels to override the first pass ones. Some things I've thought: I tried to think about using stencil to solve this, but I couldn't find a way. I know I could render into a separate target the second pass then composite the result into the first, but I'd like to avoid that. I could use two separate Depth Buffer, one dedicated to each pass. (I never tried, but I figure it's possible to switch the depth buffer in a Render Target "on the fly") Any idea of the best solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Toon/cel shading with variable line width?

    - by Nick Wiggill
    I see a few broad approaches out there to doing cel shading: Duplication & enlargement of model with flipped normals (not an option for me) Sobel filter / fragment shader approaches to edge detection Stencil buffer approaches to edge detection Geometry (or vertex) shader approaches that calculate face and edge normals Am I correct in assuming the geometry-centric approach gives the greatest amount of control over lighting and line thickness, as well eg. for terrain where you might see the silhouette line of a hill merging gradually into a plain? What if I didn't need pixel lighting on my terrain surfaces? (And I probably won't as I plan to use cell-based vertex- or texturemap-based lighting/shadowing.) Would I then be better off sticking with the geometry-type approach, or go for a screen space / fragment approach instead to keep things simpler? If so, how would I get the "inking" of hills within the mesh silhouette, rather than only the outline of the entire mesh (with no "ink" details inside that outline? Lastly, is it possible to cheaply emulate the flipped-normals approach, using a geometry shader? Is that exactly what the GS approaches do? What I want - varying line thickness with intrusive lines inside the silhouette... What I don't want...

    Read the article

  • How can I prevent seams from showing up on objects using lower mipmap levels?

    - by Shivan Dragon
    Disclaimer: kindly right click on the images and open them separately so that they're at full size, as there are fine details which don't show up otherwise. Thank you. I made a simple Blender model, it's a cylinder with the top cap removed: I've exported the UVs: Then imported them into Photoshop, and painted the inner area in yellow and the outer area in red. I made sure I cover well the UV lines: I then save the image and load it as texture on the model in Blender. Actually, I just reload it as the image where the UVs are exported, and change the viewport view mode to textured. When I look at the mesh up-close, there's yellow everywhere, everything seems fine: However, if I start zooming out, I start seeing red (literally and metaphorically) where the texture edges are: And the more I zoom, the more I see it: Same thing happends in Unity, though the effect seems less pronounced. Up close is fine and yellow: Zoom out and you see red at the seams: Now, obviously, for this simple example a workaround is to spread the yellow well outside the UV margins, and its fine from all distances. However this is an issue when you try making a complex texture that should tile seamlessly at the edges. In this situation I either make a few lines of pixels overlap (in which case it looks bad from upclose and ok from far away), or I leave them seamless and then I have those seams when seeing it from far away. So my question is, is there something I'm missing, or some extra thing I must do to have my texture look seamless from all distances?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324  | Next Page >