Search Results

Search found 37 results on 2 pages for 'raytracing'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • Fast pixelshader 2D raytracing

    - by heishe
    I'd like to do a simple 2D shadow calculation algorithm by rendering my environment into a texture, and then use raytracing to determine what pixels of the texture are not visible to the point light (simply handed to the shader as a vec2 position) . A simple brute force algorithm per pixel would looks like this: line_segment = line segment between current pixel of texture and light source For each pixel in the texture: { if pixel is not just empty space && pixel is on line_segment output = black else output = normal color of the pixel } This is, of course, probably not the fastest way to do it. Question is: What are faster ways to do it or what are some optimizations that can be applied to this technique?

    Read the article

  • Raytracing (LoS) on 3D hex-like tile maps

    - by herenvardo
    Greetings, I'm working on a game project that uses a 3D variant of hexagonal tile maps. Tiles are actually cubes, not hexes, but are laid out just like hexes (because a square can be turned to a cube to extrapolate from 2D to 3D, but there is no 3D version of a hex). Rather than a verbose description, here goes an example of a 4x4x4 map: (I have highlighted an arbitrary tile (green) and its adjacent tiles (yellow) to help describe how the whole thing is supposed to work; but the adjacency functions are not the issue, that's already solved.) I have a struct type to represent tiles, and maps are represented as a 3D array of tiles (wrapped in a Map class to add some utility methods, but that's not very relevant). Each tile is supposed to represent a perfectly cubic space, and they are all exactly the same size. Also, the offset between adjacent "rows" is exactly half the size of a tile. That's enough context; my question is: Given the coordinates of two points A and B, how can I generate a list of the tiles (or, rather, their coordinates) that a straight line between A and B would cross? That would later be used for a variety of purposes, such as determining Line-of-sight, charge path legality, and so on. BTW, this may be useful: my maps use the (0,0,0) as a reference position. The 'jagging' of the map can be defined as offsetting each tile ((y+z) mod 2) * tileSize/2.0 to the right from the position it'd have on a "sane" cartesian system. For the non-jagged rows, that yields 0; for rows where (y+z) mod 2 is 1, it yields 0.5 tiles. I'm working on C#4 targeting the .Net Framework 4.0; but I don't really need specific code, just the algorithm to solve the weird geometric/mathematical problem. I have been trying for several days to solve this at no avail; and trying to draw the whole thing on paper to "visualize" it didn't help either :( . Thanks in advance for any answer

    Read the article

  • Soft Shadows in Raytracing 3D to 2D

    - by Myx
    Hello: I wish to implement soft shadows produced by area lights in my raytracer. I'm having trouble generating the random samples. So I have a scene in which I have an area light (represented as a circle) whose world (x,y,z) coordinates of the center are given, the radius is given, the normal of the plane on which the circle lies is given, as well as the color and attenuation factors. The sampling scheme I wish to use is the following: generate samples on the quadrilateral that encompasses the circle and discard points outside the circle until the required number of samples within the circle have been found. I'm having trouble understanding how I can transform the 3D coordinates of the center of the circle to its 2D representation (I don't think I can assume that the projection of the circle is on the x-y axis and thus just get rid of the z-component). I think the plane normal information should be used but I'm not sure how. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • 3D Huge mesh rendering

    - by Keyhan Asghari
    I am writing a program, that as input, I have a huge 3d mesh (with mostly structured and cubic shaped elements), and I want to realtime render it, but not as real-time as a game. But speed of rendering is somehow important. The most important point is, I don't need any special lighting nor any shadows. Also, the objects to render are static, and they do not move. I've read about ray tracing methods, but I don't know if there is any good libraries for this purpose, or I have to implement everything by myself. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Ray Tracing Shadows in deferred rendering

    - by Grieverheart
    Recently I have programmed a raytracer for fun and found it beutifully simple how shadows are created compared to a rasterizer. Now, I couldn't help but I think if it would be possible to implement somthing similar for ray tracing of shadows in a deferred renderer. The way I though this could work is after drawing to the gbuffer, in a separate pass and for each pixel to calculate rays to the lights and draw them as lines of unique color together with the geometry (with color 0). The lines will be cut-off if there is occlusion and this fact could be used in a fragment shader to calculate which rays are occluded. I guess there must be something I'm missing, for example I'm not sure how the fragment shader could save the occlusion results for each ray so that they are available for pixel at the ray's origin. Has this method been tried before, is it possible to implement it as I described and if yes what would be the drawbacks in performance of calculating shadows this way?

    Read the article

  • Ray Tracing concers: Efficient Data Structure and Photon Mapping

    - by Grieverheart
    I'm trying to build a simple ray tracer for specific target scenes. An example of such scene can be seen below. I'm concerned as to what accelerating data structure would be most efficient in this case since all objects are touching but on the other hand, the scene is uniform. The objects in my ray tracer are stored as a collection of triangles, thus I also have access to individual triangles. Also, when trying to find the bounding box of the scene, how should infinite planes be handled? Should one instead use the viewing frustum to calculate the bounding box? A few other questions I have are about photon mapping. I've read the original paper by Jensen and many more material. In the compact data structure for the photon they introduce, they store photon power as 4 chars, which from my understanding is 3 chars for color and 1 for flux. But I don't understand how 1 char is enough to store a flux of the order of 1/n, where n is the number of photons (I'm also a bit confused about flux vs power). The other question about photon mapping is, if it would be more efficient in my case to store photons per object (or even per Object's triangle) instead of using a balanced kd-tree. Also, same question about bounding box of the scene but for photon mapping. How should one find a bounding box from the pov of the light when infinite planes are involved?

    Read the article

  • Impact of variable-length loops on GPU shaders

    - by Will
    Its popular to render procedural content inside the GPU e.g. in the demoscene (drawing a single quad to fill the screen and letting the GPU compute the pixels). Ray marching is popular: This means the GPU is executing some unknown number of loop iterations per pixel (although you can have an upper bound like maxIterations). How does having a variable-length loop affect shader performance? Imagine the simple ray-marching psuedocode: t = 0.f; while(t < maxDist) { p = rayStart + rayDir * t; d = DistanceFunc(p); t += d; if(d < epsilon) { ... emit p return; } } How are the various mainstream GPU families (Nvidia, ATI, PowerVR, Mali, Intel, etc) affected? Vertex shaders, but particularly fragment shaders? How can it be optimised?

    Read the article

  • Realtime rendering using a ray tracing engine

    - by Keyhan Asghari
    I want to render an object that has a mesh with one million hexagonal elements(100 * 100 * 100). Lights, shadows and textures is not important and each element has a solid color. and finally, the actions I want to have, is simply rotating the object, zooming and panning. I am wondering what ray tracing engine is better for my conditions. or, do I have to take another approach? any help will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Which optional features would you recommend for a raytracer? [closed]

    - by locks
    I'm developing a basic triangle mesh raytracer on a short deadline. This means I can't implement every feature I come across, so I'm looking for some feedback about which features you think are most important, taking into consideration the performance of the feature and how much punch it packs. I'm especially looking for optimization techniques that allow for a faster rendering and simple techniques that make a big impact on the final scene quality. Is there any chance of making it fast enough to run in realtime? Here are some example of features I've read about: Anti-aliasing Bounding box Sky box

    Read the article

  • Built in raytracing?

    - by acidzombie24
    Relating to this question i was wondering if .NET has any libs (or a function) i can use to detect if one point collides with another. I am not sure what angles i should use but is there some function like this func(point src, rect target, angle, distanceOfVision, listPointOrRectOfWalls) Pretty unlikely but i dont know a formula or how to start. Its a quick and dirty prototype. I am thinking of writing the func about but dropping angle and just make line of sight a rectangle and check if any points is between src and target.

    Read the article

  • Computer graphics research

    - by Shrey
    What are the best known labs for research in CG especially raytracing/rendering? I want to pursue Masters/PhD in this field and though I have been working on projects such as raytracers, it is all self-driven. What would be a good place to start, perhaps as a research intern? Also, what kind of background is expected for admissions in these programs, in terms of programming skills, formal education etc.?

    Read the article

  • Literature and Tutorials for Writing a Ray Tracer

    - by grrussel
    I am interested in finding recommendations on books on writing a raytracer, simple and clear implementations of ray tracing that can be seen on the web, and online resources on introductory raytracing. Ideally, the approach would be incremental and tutorial in style, and explain both the programming techniques and underyling mathematics, starting from the basics.

    Read the article

  • Ray-box Intersection Theory

    - by Myx
    Hello: I wish to determine the intersection point between a ray and a box. The box is defined by its min 3D coordinate and max 3D coordinate and the ray is defined by its origin and the direction to which it points. Currently, I am forming a plane for each face of the box and I'm intersecting the ray with the plane. If the ray intersects the plane, then I check whether or not the intersection point is actually on the surface of the box. If so, I check whether it is the closest intersection for this ray and I return the closest intersection. The way I check whether the plane-intersection point is on the box surface itself is through a function bool PointOnBoxFace(R3Point point, R3Point corner1, R3Point corner2) { double min_x = min(corner1.X(), corner2.X()); double max_x = max(corner1.X(), corner2.X()); double min_y = min(corner1.Y(), corner2.Y()); double max_y = max(corner1.Y(), corner2.Y()); double min_z = min(corner1.Z(), corner2.Z()); double max_z = max(corner1.Z(), corner2.Z()); if(point.X() >= min_x && point.X() <= max_x && point.Y() >= min_y && point.Y() <= max_y && point.Z() >= min_z && point.Z() <= max_z) return true; return false; } where corner1 is one corner of the rectangle for that box face and corner2 is the opposite corner. My implementation works most of the time but sometimes it gives me the wrong intersection. I was wondering if the way I'm checking whether the intersection point is on the box is correct or if I should use some other algorithm. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • solve a classic map-reduce problem with opencl?

    - by liuliu
    I am trying to parallel a classic map-reduce problem (which can parallel well with MPI) with OpenCL, namely, the AMD implementation. But the result bothers me. Let me brief about the problem first. There are two type of data that flow into the system: the feature set (30 parameters for each) and the sample set (9000+ dimensions for each). It is a classic map-reduce problem in the sense that I need to calculate the score of every feature on every sample (Map). And then, sum up the overall score for every feature (Reduce). There are around 10k features and 30k samples. I tried different ways to solve the problem. First, I tried to decompose the problem by features. The problem is that the score calculation consists of random memory access (pick some of the 9000+ dimensions and do plus/subtraction calculations). Since I cannot coalesce memory access, it costs. Then, I tried to decompose the problem by samples. The problem is that to sum up overall score, all threads are competing for few score variables. It keeps overwriting the score which turns out to be incorrect. (I cannot carry out individual score first and sum up later because it requires 10k * 30k * 4 bytes). The first method I tried gives me the same performance on i7 860 CPU with 8 threads. However, I don't think the problem is unsolvable: it is remarkably similar to ray tracing problem (for which you carry out calculation that millions of rays against millions of triangles). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Raytraced Shadows Problem

    - by Mat
    Hey There! I've got a problem with shadowrays in my raytracer. Please have a look at the following two pictures 3D sMax: My Raytracer: The scene is lit by a very bright light, shining from the back. It's so bright that there is no gradient in the shading, just either white or dark (due to the overexposure). both images were rendered using 3DStudioMax and both use the exact same geometry, just in one case the normals are interpolated across the triangles. Now consider the red dot on the surface. In the case of the unsmoothed version, it lies in a dark area. this means that the light source is not visible from this triangle, since it's facing away from it. In the smoothed version however, it lies in the lit area, because the interpolated normal would suggest, that the light would be visible at that point (although the actual geometry of the triangle is facing away from the lightsource). My problem now is when raytraced shadows come in. if a shadowray is shot into the scene, from the red dot, to test whether the light-source is visible or not (to determine shadowing), the shadowray will return an intersection, independent of whether normals are interpolated or not (because intersections only depend on the geometry). Therefore the pixel would be shaded dark. 3dsamx is handling the case correctly - the rendered image was generated with Raytraced shadows turned on. However, my own Raytracer runs exactly into this problem when i turn on raytraced shadows (in my raytracer, the point is dark in both cases, because raytraced shadows determine the point lying in the shadow), and i don't know how to solve it. I hope someone knows this problem and how to deal with it.. thanks!

    Read the article

  • point light illumination using Phong model

    - by Myx
    Hello: I wish to render a scene that contains one box and a point light source using the Phong illumination scheme. The following are the relevant code snippets for my calculation: R3Rgb Phong(R3Scene *scene, R3Ray *ray, R3Intersection *intersection) { R3Rgb radiance; if(intersection->hit == 0) { radiance = scene->background; return radiance; } ... // obtain ambient term ... // this is zero for my test // obtain emissive term ... // this is also zero for my test // for each light in the scene, obtain calculate the diffuse and specular terms R3Rgb intensity_diffuse(0,0,0,1); R3Rgb intensity_specular(0,0,0,1); for(unsigned int i = 0; i < scene->lights.size(); i++) { R3Light *light = scene->Light(i); R3Rgb light_color = LightIntensity(scene->Light(i), intersection->position); R3Vector light_vector = -LightDirection(scene->Light(i), intersection->position); // check if the light is "behind" the surface normal if(normal.Dot(light_vector)<=0) continue; // calculate diffuse reflection if(!Kd.IsBlack()) intensity_diffuse += Kd*normal.Dot(light_vector)*light_color; if(Ks.IsBlack()) continue; // calculate specular reflection ... // this I believe to be irrelevant for the particular test I'm doing } radiance = intensity_diffuse; return radiance; } R3Rgb LightIntensity(R3Light *light, R3Point position) { R3Rgb light_intensity; double distance; double denominator; if(light->type != R3_DIRECTIONAL_LIGHT) { distance = (position-light->position).Length(); denominator = light->constant_attenuation + (light->linear_attenuation*distance) + (light->quadratic_attenuation*distance*distance); } switch(light->type) { ... case R3_POINT_LIGHT: light_intensity = light->color/denominator; break; ... } return light_intensity; } R3Vector LightDirection(R3Light *light, R3Point position) { R3Vector light_direction; switch(light->type) { ... case R3_POINT_LIGHT: light_direction = position - light->position; break; ... } light_direction.Normalize(); return light_direction; } I believe that the error must be somewhere in either LightDirection(...) or LightIntensity(...) functions because when I run my code using a directional light source, I obtain the desired rendered image (thus this leads me to believe that the Phong illumination equation is correct). Also, in Phong(...), when I computed the intensity_diffuse and while debugging, I divided light_color by 10, I was obtaining a resulting image that looked more like what I need. Am I calculating the light_color correctly? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Ray-Box Intersection during Scene traversal with matrix transforms

    - by Myx
    Hello: There are a few ways that I'm testing my ray-box intersections: Using the ComputeIntersectionBox(...) method, that takes a ray and a box as arguments and computes the closest intersection of the ray and the box. This method works by forming a plane with each of the faces of the box and finding an intersection with each of the planes. Once an intersection is found, a check is made whether or not the point is on the surface of the box by checking that the intersection point is between the corner points. When I look at rays after running this algorithm on two different boxes, I obtain the correct intersections. Using ComputeIntersectionScene(...) method without using the matrix transformations on a scene that has two spheres, a dodecahedron (a triangular mesh), and two boxes. ComputeIntersectionScene(...) recursively traverses all of the nodes of the scene graph and computes the closest intersection with the given ray. This test in particular does not apply any transformations that parent nodes may have that also need to be applied to their children. With this test, I also obtain the correct intersections. Using ComputeIntersectionScene(...) method WITH the matrix transformations. This test works like the one above except that before finding an intersection between the ray and a node in the scene, the ray is transformed into the node's coordinate frame using the inverse of the node's transformation matrix and after the intersection has been computed, this intersection is transformed back into the world coordinates by applying the transformation matrix to the intersection point. When testing with the third method on the same scene file as described in 2, testing with 4 rays (thus one ray intersects the one sphere, one ray the the other sphere, one ray one box, and one ray the other box), only the two spheres get intersected and the two boxes do not get intersections. When I debug looking into my ComputeIntersectionBox(...) method, it actually tells me that the ray intersects every plane on the box but each intersection point does not lie on the box. This seems to be strange behavior, since when using test 2 without transformations, I obtain the correct box intersections (thus, I believe my ray-box intersection to be correct) and when using test 3 WITH transformations, I obtain the correct sphere intersections (thus, I believe my transformed ray should be OK). Any suggestions where I could be going wrong? Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • OpenGL render vs. own Phong Illumination Implementation

    - by Myx
    Hello: I have implemented a Phong Illumination Scheme using a camera that's centered at (0,0,0) and looking directly at the sphere primitive. The following are the relevant contents of the scene file that is used to view the scene using OpenGL as well as to render the scene using my own implementation: ambient 0 1 0 dir_light 1 1 1 -3 -4 -5 # A red sphere with 0.5 green ambiance, centered at (0,0,0) with radius 1 material 0 0.5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 sphere 0 0 0 0 1 The resulting image produced by OpenGL. The image that my rendering application produces. As you can see, there are various differences between the two: The specular highlight on my image is smaller than the one in OpenGL. The diffuse surface seems to not diffuse in the correct way, resulting in the yellow region to be unneccessarily large in my image, whereas in OpenGL there's a nice dark green region closer to the bottom of the sphere The color produced by OpenGL is much darker than the one in my image. Those are the most prominent three differences that I see. The following is my implementation of the Phong illumination: R3Rgb Phong(R3Scene *scene, R3Ray *ray, R3Intersection *intersection) { R3Rgb radiance; if(intersection->hit == 0) { radiance = scene->background; return radiance; } R3Vector normal = intersection->normal; R3Rgb Kd = intersection->node->material->kd; R3Rgb Ks = intersection->node->material->ks; // obtain ambient term R3Rgb intensity_ambient = intersection->node->material->ka*scene->ambient; // obtain emissive term R3Rgb intensity_emission = intersection->node->material->emission; // for each light in the scene, obtain calculate the diffuse and specular terms R3Rgb intensity_diffuse(0,0,0,1); R3Rgb intensity_specular(0,0,0,1); for(unsigned int i = 0; i < scene->lights.size(); i++) { R3Light *light = scene->Light(i); R3Rgb light_color = LightIntensity(scene->Light(i), intersection->position); R3Vector light_vector = -LightDirection(scene->Light(i), intersection->position); // calculate diffuse reflection intensity_diffuse += Kd*normal.Dot(light_vector)*light_color; // calculate specular reflection R3Vector reflection_vector = 2.*normal.Dot(light_vector)*normal-light_vector; reflection_vector.Normalize(); R3Vector viewing_vector = ray->Start() - intersection->position; viewing_vector.Normalize(); double n = intersection->node->material->shininess; intensity_specular += Ks*pow(max(0.,viewing_vector.Dot(reflection_vector)),n)*light_color; } radiance = intensity_emission+intensity_ambient+intensity_diffuse+intensity_specular; return radiance; } Here are the related LightIntensity(...) and LightDirection(...) functions: R3Vector LightDirection(R3Light *light, R3Point position) { R3Vector light_direction; switch(light->type) { case R3_DIRECTIONAL_LIGHT: light_direction = light->direction; break; case R3_POINT_LIGHT: light_direction = position-light->position; break; case R3_SPOT_LIGHT: light_direction = position-light->position; break; } light_direction.Normalize(); return light_direction; } R3Rgb LightIntensity(R3Light *light, R3Point position) { R3Rgb light_intensity; double distance; double denominator; if(light->type != R3_DIRECTIONAL_LIGHT) { distance = (position-light->position).Length(); denominator = light->constant_attenuation + light->linear_attenuation*distance + light->quadratic_attenuation*distance*distance; } switch(light->type) { case R3_DIRECTIONAL_LIGHT: light_intensity = light->color; break; case R3_POINT_LIGHT: light_intensity = light->color/denominator; break; case R3_SPOT_LIGHT: R3Vector from_light_to_point = position - light->position; light_intensity = light->color*( pow(light->direction.Dot(from_light_to_point), light->angle_attenuation)); break; } return light_intensity; } I would greatly appreciate any suggestions as to any implementation errors that are apparent. I am wondering if the differences could be occurring simply because of the gamma values used for display by OpenGL and the default gamma value for my display. I also know that OpenGL (or at least tha parts that I was provided) can't cast shadows on objects. Not that this is relevant for the point in question, but it just leads me to wonder if it's simply display and capability differences between OpenGL and what I am trying to do. Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • Ray Generation Inconsistency

    - by Myx
    I have written code that generates a ray from the "eye" of the camera to the viewing plane some distance away from the camera's eye: R3Ray ConstructRayThroughPixel(...) { R3Point p; double increments_x = (lr.X() - ul.X())/(double)width; double increments_y = (ul.Y() - lr.Y())/(double)height; p.SetX( ul.X() + ((double)i_pos+0.5)*increments_x ); p.SetY( lr.Y() + ((double)j_pos+0.5)*increments_y ); p.SetZ( lr.Z() ); R3Vector v = p-camera_pos; R3Ray new_ray(camera_pos,v); return new_ray; } ul is the upper left corner of the viewing plane and lr is the lower left corner of the viewing plane. They are defined as follows: R3Point org = scene->camera.eye + scene->camera.towards * radius; R3Vector dx = scene->camera.right * radius * tan(scene->camera.xfov); R3Vector dy = scene->camera.up * radius * tan(scene->camera.yfov); R3Point lr = org + dx - dy; R3Point ul = org - dx + dy; Here, org is the center of the viewing plane with radius being the distance between the viewing plane and the camera eye, dx and dy are the displacements in the x and y directions from the center of the viewing plane. The ConstructRayThroughPixel(...) function works perfectly for a camera whose eye is at (0,0,0). However, when the camera is at some different position, not all needed rays are produced for the image. Any suggestions what could be going wrong? Maybe something wrong with my equations? Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Matlab - Propagate points orthogonally on to the edge of shape boundaries

    - by Graham
    Hi I have a set of points which I want to propagate on to the edge of shape boundary defined by a binary image. The shape boundary is defined by a 1px wide white edge. I also have the coordinates of these points stored in a 2 row by n column matrix. The shape forms a concave boundary with no holes within itself made of around 2500 points. I want to cast a ray from each point from the set of points in an orthogonal direction and detect at which point it intersects the shape boundary at. What would be the best method to do this? Are there some sort of ray tracing algorithms that could be used? Or would it be a case of taking orthogonal unit vector and multiplying it by a scalar and testing after multiplication if the end point of the vector is outside the shape boundary. When the end point of the unit vector is outside the shape, just find the point of intersection? Thank you very much in advance for any help!

    Read the article

  • Pointers to Derived Class Objects Losing vfptr

    - by duckworthd
    To begin, I am trying to write a run-of-the-mill, simple Ray Tracer. In my Ray Tracer, I have multiple types of geometries in the world, all derived from a base class called "SceneObject". I've included the header for it here. /** Interface for all objects that will appear in a scene */ class SceneObject { public: mat4 M, M_inv; Color c; SceneObject(); ~SceneObject(); /** The transformation matrix to be applied to all points of this object. Identity leaves the object in world frame. */ void setMatrix(mat4 M); void setMatrix(MatrixStack mStack); void getMatrix(mat4& M); /** The color of the object */ void setColor(Color c); void getColor(Color& c); /** Alter one portion of the color, leaving the rest as they were. */ void setDiffuse(vec3 rgb); void setSpecular(vec3 rgb); void setEmission(vec3 rgb); void setAmbient(vec3 rgb); void setShininess(double s); /** Fills 'inter' with information regarding an intersection between this object and 'ray'. Ray should be in world frame. */ virtual void intersect(Intersection& inter, Ray ray) = 0; /** Returns a copy of this SceneObject */ virtual SceneObject* clone() = 0; /** Print information regarding this SceneObject for debugging */ virtual void print() = 0; }; As you can see, I've included a couple virtual functions to be implemented elsewhere. In this case, I have only two derived class -- Sphere and Triangle, both of which implement the missing member functions. Finally, I have a Parser class, which is full of static methods that do the actual "Ray Tracing" part. Here's a couple snippets for relevant portions void Parser::trace(Camera cam, Scene scene, string outputFile, int maxDepth) { int width = cam.getNumXPixels(); int height = cam.getNumYPixels(); vector<vector<vec3>> colors; colors.clear(); for (int i = 0; i< width; i++) { vector<vec3> ys; for (int j = 0; j<height; j++) { Intersection intrsct; Ray ray; cam.getRay(ray, i, j); vec3 color; printf("Obtaining color for Ray[%d,%d]\n", i,j); getColor(color, scene, ray, maxDepth); ys.push_back(color); } colors.push_back(ys); } printImage(colors, width, height, outputFile); } void Parser::getColor(vec3& color, Scene scene, Ray ray, int numBounces) { Intersection inter; scene.intersect(inter,ray); if(inter.isIntersecting()){ Color c; inter.getColor(c); c.getAmbient(color); } else { color = vec3(0,0,0); } } Right now, I've forgone the true Ray Tracing part and instead simply return the color of the first object hit, if any. As you have no doubt noticed, the only way the computer knows that a ray has intersected an object is through Scene.intersect(), which I also include. void Scene::intersect(Intersection& i, Ray r) { Intersection result; result.setDistance(numeric_limits<double>::infinity()); result.setIsIntersecting(false); double oldDist; result.getDistance(oldDist); /* Cycle through all objects, making result the closest one */ for(int ind=0; ind<objects.size(); ind++){ SceneObject* thisObj = objects[ind]; Intersection betterIntersect; thisObj->intersect(betterIntersect, r); double newDist; betterIntersect.getDistance(newDist); if (newDist < oldDist){ result = betterIntersect; oldDist = newDist; } } i = result; } Alright, now for the problem. I begin by creating a scene and filling it with objects outside of the Parser::trace() method. Now for some odd reason, I cast Ray for i=j=0 and everything works wonderfully. However, by the time the second ray is cast all of the objects stored in my Scene no longer recognize their vfptr's! I stepped through the code with a debugger and found that the information to all the vfptr's are lost somewhere between the end of getColor() and the continuation of the loop. However, if I change the arguments of getColor() to use a Scene& instead of a Scene, then no loss occurs. What crazy voodoo is this?

    Read the article

  • Why do my raytraced spheres have dark lines when lit with multiple light sources?

    - by Curyous
    I have a simple raytracer that only works back up to the first intersection. The scene looks OK with two different light sources, but when both lights are in the scene, there are dark shadows where the lit area from one ends, even if in the middle of a lit area from the other light source (particularly noticeable on the green ball). The transition from the 'area lit by both light sources' to the 'area lit by just one light source' seems to be slightly darker than the 'area lit by just one light source'. The code where I'm adding the lighting effects is: // trace lights for ( int l=0; l<primitives.count; l++) { Primitive* p = [primitives objectAtIndex:l]; if (p.light) { Sphere * lightSource = (Sphere *)p; // calculate diffuse shading Vector3 *light = [[Vector3 alloc] init]; light.x = lightSource.centre.x - intersectionPoint.x; light.y = lightSource.centre.y - intersectionPoint.y; light.z = lightSource.centre.z - intersectionPoint.z; [light normalize]; Vector3 * normal = [[primitiveThatWasHit getNormalAt:intersectionPoint] retain]; if (primitiveThatWasHit.material.diffuse > 0) { float illumination = DOT(normal, light); if (illumination > 0) { float diff = illumination * primitiveThatWasHit.material.diffuse; // add diffuse component to ray color colour.red += diff * primitiveThatWasHit.material.colour.red * lightSource.material.colour.red; colour.blue += diff * primitiveThatWasHit.material.colour.blue * lightSource.material.colour.blue; colour.green += diff * primitiveThatWasHit.material.colour.green * lightSource.material.colour.green; } } [normal release]; [light release]; } } How can I make it look right?

    Read the article

  • Triangular bounding volumes

    - by Cheery
    I've come up with an alternative for beziers that might be easier to ray-trace, perhaps even though a plain vertex shader. Though there's missing a piece. I need to find the parametric surface equation from the surface normals I have for edge vertices. I also have to know it's peak and valley so I can constraint the depth of my bounding triangle. Image explains the overall idea: I build a bounding-volume from a control triangle. Then apply a function to each parametric coordinate of the triangle (s+t+u=1 where s,t,u = 0) to get the height coordinate for that certain point. Simply put, it produces a procedurally generated height-map for the triangle's surface. I just need to find a function that generates the height-map so I can make it work.

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >