Search Results

Search found 43 results on 2 pages for 'voxels'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

• Best way of storing voxels

  - by opiop65

  This should be a pretty easy question to answer, and I'm not looking for how to store the voxels data wise, I'm looking for the theory. Currently, my voxel engine has no global list of tiles. Each chunk has it's own list, and its hard to do things like collision detection or anything that may use tiles that are outside of its own chunk. I recently worked on procedural terrain with a non voxel engine. Now, I want to start using heightmaps in my voxel engine. But, I have a problem. If each chunk has its own list, then it will be pretty difficult to implement the heightmaps. My real question is, is should I store a global list of voxels independent of the chunks? And then I can just easily perform collision detection and terrain generation. However, it would probably be harder to do things such as frustum culling. So how should I store them?

  Read the article

• Efficient visualization of a large voxelized volume

  - by Alejandro Piad

  Lets consider a large voxelized volume stored in an oct-tree or any other convenient structure. This volume represents, for instance, a landscape, where each block is either empty (air), or it has an specific material that will be later used to apply a texture. Voxels that are next to each other represent connected sections of the surface. What I need is an algorithm to generate a mesh from this voxels that represents the volume, with the following caracteristics: All the "holes" in the voxelized volume are correct. All the connections are correct, i.e. seamless. The surface appears smooth. In a broad sense, I want to somehow preserve the surface topology, meaning that connected sections remain connected in the resulting mesh and that the surface has a curvature that responds to the voxels topology. Imagine trying to render the Minecraft world but getting the mountain ladders to be smooth instead of blocky.

  Read the article

• Voxel Engine in Multiplayer?

  - by Oliver Schöning

  This is a question more out of Interest for now, because I am not even near to the point that I could create this project at the moment. I really like the progress on the Atomontage Engine. A Voxel engine that is WIP at the moment. I would like to create a Voxel SERVER eventually. First in JavaScript (That's what I am learning right now) later perhaps in C++ for speed. Remember, I am perfectly aware that this is very hard! This is a brainstorm for the next 10 years as for now. What I would like to achieve one day is a Multiplayer Game in the Browser where the voxels positions are updated by XYZ input from the server. The Browser Does only 3 things: sending player input to the server, updating Voxel positions send from the server and rendering the world. I imagine using something like the Three.js libary on the client side. So that would be my programming dream right there... Now to something simpler for the near future. Right now I am learning javascript. And I am making games with Construct2. (A really cool JavaScript "game maker") The plan is to create a 2D Voxel enviorment (Block Voxels) on the Socket.IO Server* and send the position of the Voxels and Players to the Client side which then positions the Voxel Blocks to the Server Output coordinates. I think that is a bit more manageable then the other bigger idea. And also there should be no worries about speed with this type of project in JavaScript (I hope). Extra Info: *I am using nodejs (Without really knowing what it does besides making Socket.IO work) So now some questions: Is the "dream project" doable in JavaScript? Or is C++ just the best option because it does not take as long to be interpreted at run time like JavaScript? What are the limitations? I can think of some: Need of a Powerful server depending on how much information the server has to process. Internet Speed; Sending the data of the Voxel positions to every player could add up being very high! The browser FPS might go down quickly if rendering to many objects. One way of fixing reducing the packages Could be to let the browser calculate some of the Voxel positions from Several Values. But that would slow down the Client side too. What about the more achievable project? I am almost 100% convinced that this is possible in JavaScript, and that there are several ways of doing this. This is just XY position Updating for now.. Hope this did make some sense. Please comment if you got something to say :D

  Read the article

• "Marching cubes" voxel terrain - triplanar texturing with depth?

  - by Dan the Man

  I am currently working on a voxel terrain that uses the marching cubes algorithm for polygonizing the scalar field of voxels. I am using a triplanar texturing shader for texturing. say I have a grass texture set to the Y axis and a dirt texture for both the X and Z axes. Now, when my player digs downwards, it still appears as grass. How would I make it to appear as dirt? I have been thinking about this for a while, and the only thing I can think of to make this effect, would be to mark vertices that have been dug with a certain vertex color. When it has that vertex color, the shader would apply that dirt texture to the vertices marked. Is there a better method?

  Read the article

• Collision detection of convex shapes on voxel terrain

  - by Dave

  I have some standard convex shapes (cubes, capsules) on a voxel terrain. It is very easy to detect single vertex collisions. However, it becomes computationally expensive when many vertices are involved. To clarify, currently my algorithm represents a cube as multiple vertices covering every face of the cube, not just the corners. This is because the cubes can be much bigger than the voxels, so multiple sample points (vertices) are required (the distance between sample points must be at least the width of a voxel). This very rapidly becomes intractable. It would be great if there were some standard algorithm(s) for collision detection between convex shapes and arbitrary voxel based terrain (like there is with OBB's and seperating axis theorem etc). Any help much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Hardware instancing for voxel engine

  - by Menno Gouw

  i just did the tutorial on Hardware Instancing from this source: http://www.float4x4.net/index.php/2011/07/hardware-instancing-for-pc-in-xna-4-with-textures/. Somewhere between 900.000 and 1.000.000 draw calls for the cube i get this error "XNA Framework HiDef profile supports a maximum VertexBuffer size of 67108863." while still running smoothly on 900k. That is slightly less then 100x100x100 which are a exactly a million. Now i have seen voxel engines with very "tiny" voxels, you easily get to 1.000.000 cubes in view with rough terrain and a decent far plane. Obviously i can optimize a lot in the geometry buffer method, like rendering only visible faces of a cube or using larger faces covering multiple cubes if the area is flat. But is a vertex buffer of roughly 67mb the max i can work with or can i create multiple?

  Read the article

• Rendering different materials in a voxel terrain

  - by MaelmDev

  Each voxel datapoint in my terrain model is made up of two properties: density and material type. Each is stored as an unsigned integer value (but the density is interpreted as a decimal value between 0 and 1). My current idea for rendering these different materials on the terrain mesh is to store eleven extra attributes in each vertex: six material values corresponding to the materials of the voxels that the vertices lie between, three decimal values that correspond to the interpolation each vertex has between each voxel, and two decimal values that are used to determine where the fragment lies on the triangle. The material and interpolation attributes are the exact same for each vertex in the triangle. The fragment shader samples each texture that corresponds to each material and then uses the aforementioned couple of decimal values to interpolate between these samples and obtain the final textured color of the fragment. It should work fine, but it seems like a big memory hog. I won't be able to reuse vertices in the mesh with indexing, and each vertex will have a lot of data associated with it. It also seems pretty slow. What are some ways to improve or replace this technique for drawing materials on a voxel terrain mesh?

  Read the article

• Octrees and Vertex Buffer Objects

  - by sharethis

  As many others I want to code a game with a voxel based terrain. The data is represented by voxels which are rendered using triangles. I head of two different approaches and want to combine them. First, I could once divide the space in chunks of a fixed size like many games do. What I could do now is to generate a polygon shape for each chunk and store that in a vertex buffer object (vbo). Each time a voxel changes, the polygon and vbo of its chunk is recreated. Additionally it is easy to dynamically load and reload parts of the terrain. Another approach would be to use octrees and divide the space in eight cubes which are divided again and again. So I could efficiently render the terrain because I don't have to go deeper in a solid cube and can draw that as a single one (with a repeated texture). What I like to use for my game is an octree datastructure. But I can't imagine how to use vbos with that. How is that done, or is this impossible?

  Read the article

• Making efficeint voxel engines using "chunks"

  - by Wardy

  Concept I'm currently looking in to how voxel engines work with a view to possibly making one myself. I see a lot of stuff like this ... https://sites.google.com/site/letsmakeavoxelengine/home/chunks ... which talks about how to go about reducing the draw calls. What I can't seem to understand is how it actually saves draw call counts on the basis of the logic being something like this ... Without chunks foreach voxel in myvoxels DrawIfVisible() With Chunks foreach chunk in mychunks DrawIfVisible() which then does ... foreach voxel in myvoxels DrawIfVisible() So surely you saved nothing ?!?! You still make a draw call for each visible voxel do you not? A visible voxel needs a draw call in either scenario. The only real saving I can see is that the logic that evaluates a chunk will be able to determine if a large number of voxels are visible or not effectively saving a bit of "is this chunk visible" cpu time. But it's the draw calls that interest me ... The fewer of those, the faster the application. EDIT: In case it makes any difference I will probably be using XNA (DX not OpenGL) for my engine so don't consider my choice of example in the link above my choice of technology. But this question is such that I doubt it would matter.

  Read the article

• Voxel terrain rendering with marching cubes

  - by JavaJosh94

  I was working on making procedurally generated terrain using normal cubish voxels (like minecraft) But then I read about marching cubes and decided to convert to using those. I managed to create a working marching cubes class and cycle through the densities and everything in it seemed to be working so I went on to work on actual terrain generation. I'm using XNA (C#) and a ported libnoise library to generate noise for the terrain generator. But instead of rendering smooth terrain I get a 64x64 chunk (I specified 64 but can change it) of seemingly random marching cubes using different triangles. This is the code I'm using to generate a "chunk": public MarchingCube[, ,] getTerrainChunk(int size, float dMultiplyer, int stepsize) { MarchingCube[, ,] temp = new MarchingCube[size / stepsize, size / stepsize, size / stepsize]; for (int x = 0; x < size; x += stepsize) { for (int y = 0; y <size; y += stepsize) { for (int z = 0; z < size; z += stepsize) { float[] densities = {(float)terrain.GetValue(x, y, z)*dMultiplyer, (float)terrain.GetValue(x, y+stepsize, z)*dMultiplyer, (float)terrain.GetValue(x+stepsize, y+stepsize, z)*dMultiplyer, (float)terrain.GetValue(x+stepsize, y, z)*dMultiplyer, (float)terrain.GetValue(x,y,z+stepsize)*dMultiplyer,(float)terrain.GetValue(x,y+stepsize,z+stepsize)*dMultiplyer,(float)terrain.GetValue(x+stepsize,y+stepsize,z+stepsize)*dMultiplyer,(float)terrain.GetValue(x+stepsize,y,z+stepsize)*dMultiplyer }; Vector3[] corners = { new Vector3(x,y,z), new Vector3(x,y+stepsize,z),new Vector3(x+stepsize,y+stepsize,z),new Vector3(x+stepsize,y,z), new Vector3(x,y,z+stepsize), new Vector3(x,y+stepsize,z+stepsize), new Vector3(x+stepsize,y+stepsize,z+stepsize), new Vector3(x+stepsize,y,z+stepsize)}; if (x == 0 && y == 0 && z == 0) { temp[x / stepsize, y / stepsize, z / stepsize] = new MarchingCube(densities, corners, device); } temp[x / stepsize, y / stepsize, z / stepsize] = new MarchingCube(densities, corners); } } } (terrain is a Perlin Noise generated using libnoise) I'm sure there's probably an easy solution to this but I've been drawing a blank for the past hour. I'm just wondering if the problem is how I'm reading in the data from the noise or if I may be generating the noise wrong? Or maybe the noise is just not good for this kind of generation? If I'm reading it wrong does anyone know the right way? the answers on google were somewhat ambiguous but I'm going to keep searching. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Producing a smooth mesh from density cloud and marching cubes

  - by Wardy

  Based on my results from this question I decided to build myself a 3D noise map containing float values in place of my existing boolean point values. The effect I'm trying to produce is something like this, rather than typical rolling hills; which should explain the "missing cubes" in the image below. If I render my density map in normal "minecraft mode" (1 block per point in the density map) varying the size of the cube based on the value in my density map (floats in the range 0 to 1) I get something like this: I'm now happy that I can produce a density map for the marching cubes algorithm (which will need a little tweaking) but for some reason when I run it through my implementation it's not producing what I expect. My problem is that I'm getting something like the first image in this answer to my previous question, when I want to achieve the effect in the second image. Upon further investigation I can't see how marching cubes does the "move vertex along the edge" type logic (i.e. the difference between the two images on my previous link). I see that it does do some interpolation, but I'm not convinced I have the correct understanding of what I think it should do, because the code in question appears to give the same result regardless of whether I use boolean or float values. I took the code from here which is a C# implementation of marching cubes, but instead of using the MarchingCubesPrimitive I modified it to accept an object of type IDrawable, containing lists for the various collections (vertices, normals, UVs, indices), the logic was otherwise untouched. My understanding is that given a very low isovalue the accuracy level of the surface being rendered should increase, so in short "less 45 degree slows more rolling hills" type mesh output. However this isn't what I'm seeing. Have I missed something or is the implementation flawed and need to be fixed? EDIT: A little more detail on what I am seeing when I "marching cube" the data. Ok so firstly, ignore the fact that the meshes created by the chunks don't "connect" (i'll probably raise another question about this later). Then look at the shaping of the island, it's too ... square, from the voxels rendered as boxes you get the impression there's a clean soft gradual hill and yet from the image there are sharp falling edges even in the most central areas where the gradient in the first image looks the most smooth. The data is "regenerated" each time I run this so no 2 islands come out the same, and it's purely random so not based on noise, but still, how can it look so smooth in 1 image and so not smooth in the other?

  Read the article

• Skewed: a rotating camera in a simple CPU-based voxel raycaster/raytracer

  - by voxelizr

  TL;DR -- in my first simple software voxel raycaster, I cannot get camera rotations to work, seemingly correct matrices notwithstanding. The result is skewed: like a flat rendering, correctly rotated, however distorted and without depth. (While axis-aligned ie. unrotated, depth and parallax are as expected.) I'm trying to write a simple voxel raycaster as a learning exercise. This is purely CPU based for now until I figure out how things work exactly -- fow now, OpenGL is just (ab)used to blit the generated bitmap to the screen as often as possible. Now I have gotten to the point where a perspective-projection camera can move through the world and I can render (mostly, minus some artifacts that need investigation) perspective-correct 3-dimensional views of the "world", which is basically empty but contains a voxel cube of the Stanford Bunny. So I have a camera that I can move up and down, strafe left and right and "walk forward/backward" -- all axis-aligned so far, no camera rotations. Herein lies my problem. Screenshot #1: correct depth when the camera is still strictly axis-aligned, ie. un-rotated. Now I have for a few days been trying to get rotation to work. The basic logic and theory behind matrices and 3D rotations, in theory, is very clear to me. Yet I have only ever achieved a "2.5 rendering" when the camera rotates... fish-eyey, bit like in Google Streetview: even though I have a volumetric world representation, it seems --no matter what I try-- like I would first create a rendering from the "front view", then rotate that flat rendering according to camera rotation. Needless to say, I'm by now aware that rotating rays is not particularly necessary and error-prone. Still, in my most recent setup, with the most simplified raycast ray-position-and-direction algorithm possible, my rotation still produces the same fish-eyey flat-render-rotated style looks: Screenshot #2: camera "rotated to the right by 39 degrees" -- note how the blue-shaded left-hand side of the cube from screen #2 is not visible in this rotation, yet by now "it really should"! Now of course I'm aware of this: in a simple axis-aligned-no-rotation-setup like I had in the beginning, the ray simply traverses in small steps the positive z-direction, diverging to the left or right and top or bottom only depending on pixel position and projection matrix. As I "rotate the camera to the right or left" -- ie I rotate it around the Y-axis -- those very steps should be simply transformed by the proper rotation matrix, right? So for forward-traversal the Z-step gets a bit smaller the more the cam rotates, offset by an "increase" in the X-step. Yet for the pixel-position-based horizontal+vertical-divergence, increasing fractions of the x-step need to be "added" to the z-step. Somehow, none of my many matrices that I experimented with, nor my experiments with matrix-less hardcoded verbose sin/cos calculations really get this part right. Here's my basic per-ray pre-traversal algorithm -- syntax in Go, but take it as pseudocode: fx and fy: pixel positions x and y rayPos: vec3 for the ray starting position in world-space (calculated as below) rayDir: vec3 for the xyz-steps to be added to rayPos in each step during ray traversal rayStep: a temporary vec3 camPos: vec3 for the camera position in world space camRad: vec3 for camera rotation in radians pmat: typical perspective projection matrix The algorithm / pseudocode: // 1: rayPos is for now "this pixel, as a vector on the view plane in 3d, at The Origin" rayPos.X, rayPos.Y, rayPos.Z = ((fx / width) - 0.5), ((fy / height) - 0.5), 0 // 2: rotate around Y axis depending on cam rotation. No prob since view plane still at Origin 0,0,0 rayPos.MultMat(num.NewDmat4RotationY(camRad.Y)) // 3: a temp vec3. planeDist is -0.15 or some such -- fov-based dist of view plane from eye and also the non-normalized, "in axis-aligned world" traversal step size "forward into the screen" rayStep.X, rayStep.Y, rayStep.Z = 0, 0, planeDist // 4: rotate this too -- 0,zstep should become some meaningful xzstep,xzstep rayStep.MultMat(num.NewDmat4RotationY(CamRad.Y)) // set up direction vector from still-origin-based-ray-position-off-rotated-view-plane plus rotated-zstep-vector rayDir.X, rayDir.Y, rayDir.Z = -rayPos.X - me.rayStep.X, -rayPos.Y, rayPos.Z + rayStep.Z // perspective projection rayDir.Normalize() rayDir.MultMat(pmat) // before traversal, the ray starting position has to be transformed from origin-relative to campos-relative rayPos.Add(camPos) I'm skipping the traversal and sampling parts -- as per screens #1 through #3, those are "basically mostly correct" (though not pretty) -- when axis-aligned / unrotated.

  Read the article

• How does Minecraft compute lighting for it's non-block objects?

  - by Darestium

  I was wondering how the creator of Minecraft went about lighting the objects (player and pickaxe) based on the lighting level around the player. I have implemented the ability to light the blocks around the player but I can't really think of anyway to implement with objects. Also, when I the player moves and the lighting values change will I have to rebuild it's vertexbuffers? Or is there some other way? Any ideas?

  Read the article

• C# XNA: Effecient mesh building algorithm for voxel based terrain ("top" outside layer only, non-destructible)

  - by Tim Hatch

  To put this bluntly, for non-destructible/non-constructible voxel style terrain, are generated meshes handled much better than instancing? Is there another method to achieve millions of visible quad faces per scene with ease? If generated meshes per chunk is the way to go, what kind of algorithm might I want to use based on only EVER needing the outer layer rendered? I'm using 3D Perlin Noise for terrain generation (for overhangs/caves/etc). The layout is fantastic, but even for around 20k visible faces, it's quite slow using instancing (whether it's one big draw call or multiple smaller chunks). I've simplified it to the point of removing non-visible cubes and only having the top faces of my cube-like terrain be rendered, but with 20k quad instances, it's still pretty sluggish (30fps on my machine). My goal is for the world to be made using quite small cubes. Where multiple games (IE: Minecraft) have the player 1x1 cube in width/length and 2 high, I'm shooting for 6x6 width/length and 9 high. With a lot of advantages as far as gameplay goes, it also means I could quite easily have a single scene with millions of truly visible quads. So, I have been trying to look into changing my method from instancing to mesh generation on a chunk by chunk basis. Do video cards handle this type of processing better than separate quads/cubes through instancing? What kind of existing algorithms should I be looking into? I've seen references to marching cubes a few times now, but I haven't spent much time investigating it since I don't know if it's the better route for my situation or not. I'm also starting to doubt my need of using 3D Perlin noise for terrain generation since I won't want the kind of depth it would seem best at. I just like the idea of overhangs and occasional cave-like structures, but could find no better 'surface only' algorithms to cover that. If anyone has any better suggestions there, feel free to throw them at me too. Thanks, Mythics

  Read the article

• How to load stacking chunks on the fly?

  - by Brettetete

  I'm currently working on an infinite world, mostly inspired by minecraft. A Chunk consists of 16x16x16 blocks. A block(cube) is 1x1x1. This runs very smoothly with a ViewRange of 12 Chunks (12x16) on my computer. Fine. When I change the Chunk height to 256 this becomes - obviously - incredible laggy. So what I basically want to do is stacking chunks. That means my world could be [8,16,8] Chunks large. The question is now how to generate chunks on the fly? At the moment I generate not existing chunks circular around my position (near to far). Since I don't stack chunks yet, this is not very complex. As important side note here: I also want to have biomes, with different min/max height. So in Biome Flatlands the highest layer with blocks would be 8 (8x16) - in Biome Mountains the highest layer with blocks would be 14 (14x16). Just as example. What I could do would be loading 1 Chunk above and below me for example. But here the problem would be, that transitions between different bioms could be larger than one chunk on y. My current chunk loading in action For the completeness here my current chunk loading "algorithm" private IEnumerator UpdateChunks(){ for (int i = 1; i < VIEW_RANGE; i += ChunkWidth) { float vr = i; for (float x = transform.position.x - vr; x < transform.position.x + vr; x += ChunkWidth) { for (float z = transform.position.z - vr; z < transform.position.z + vr; z += ChunkWidth) { _pos.Set(x, 0, z); // no y, yet _pos.x = Mathf.Floor(_pos.x/ChunkWidth)*ChunkWidth; _pos.z = Mathf.Floor(_pos.z/ChunkWidth)*ChunkWidth; Chunk chunk = Chunk.FindChunk(_pos); // If Chunk is already created, continue if (chunk != null) continue; // Create a new Chunk.. chunk = (Chunk) Instantiate(ChunkFab, _pos, Quaternion.identity); } } // Skip to next frame yield return 0; } }

  Read the article

• Lighting a Voxel World Realistically

  - by sharethis

  I am new to game development and never implemented a complicated (and realistic) lighting. My game uses a 3d voxel terrain world (like Minecraft). To hold the data I use octrees. My goal is to render a more realistic world scene like in most voxel games. For that I want to use a bezier algorithm to round out the blocky world. Assume that I already have a large generated polygon of my terrain (or some of them). I heard of some techniques like volumetric light, global illumination, ... What approaches of a very realistic lighting are there for my "organic shaped" voxel game?

  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

• Should I always be checking every neighbor when building voxel meshes?

  - by Raven Dreamer

  I've been playing around with Unity3d, seeing if I can make a voxel-based engine out of it (a la Castle Story, or Minecraft). I've dynamically built a mesh from a volume of cubes, and now I'm looking into reducing the number of vertices built into each mesh, as right now, I'm "rendering" vertices and triangles for cubes that are fully hidden within the larger voxel volume. The simple solution is to check each of the 6 directions for each cube, and only add the face to the mesh if the neighboring voxel in that direction is "empty". Parsing a voxel volume is BigO(N^3), and checking the 6 neighbors keeps it BigO(7*N^3)-BigO(N^3). The one thing this results in is a lot of redundant calls, as the same voxel will be polled up to 7 times, just to build the mesh. My question, then, is: Is there a way to parse a cubic volume (and find which faces have neighbors) with fewer redundant calls? And perhaps more importantly, does it matter (as BigO complexity is the same in both cases)?

  Read the article

• Problems with 3D Array for Voxel Data

  - by Sean M.

  I'm trying to implement a voxel engine in C++ using OpenGL, and I've been working on the rendering of the world. In order to render, I have a 3D array of uint16's that hold that id of the block at the point. I also have a 3D array of uint8's that I am using to store the visibility data for that point, where each bit represents if a face is visible. I have it so the blocks render and all of the proper faces are hidden if needed, but all of the blocks are offset by a power of 2 from where they are stored in the array. So the block at [0][0][0] is rendered at (0, 0, 0), and the block at 11 is rendered at (1, 1, 1), but the block at [2][2][2] is rendered at (4, 4, 4) and the block at [3][3][3] is rendered at (8, 8, 8), and so on and so forth. This is the result of drawing the above situation: I'm still a little new to the more advanced concepts of C++, like triple pointers, which I'm using for the 3D array, so I think the error is somewhere in there. This is the code for creating the arrays: uint16*** _blockData; //Contains a 3D array of uint16s that are the ids of the blocks in the region uint8*** _visibilityData; //Contains a 3D array of bytes that hold the visibility data for the faces //Allocate memory for the world data _blockData = new uint16**[REGION_DIM]; for (int i = 0; i < REGION_DIM; i++) { _blockData[i] = new uint16*[REGION_DIM]; for (int j = 0; j < REGION_DIM; j++) _blockData[i][j] = new uint16[REGION_DIM]; } //Allocate memory for the visibility _visibilityData = new uint8**[REGION_DIM]; for (int i = 0; i < REGION_DIM; i++) { _visibilityData[i] = new uint8*[REGION_DIM]; for (int j = 0; j < REGION_DIM; j++) _visibilityData[i][j] = new uint8[REGION_DIM]; } Here is the code used to create the block mesh for the region: //Check if the positive x face is visible, this happens for every face //Block::VERT_X_POS is just an array of non-transformed cube verts for one face //These checks are in a triple loop, which goes over every place in the array if (_visibilityData[x][y][z] & 0x01 > 0) { _vertexData->AddData(&(translateVertices(Block::VERT_X_POS, x, y, z)[0]), sizeof(Block::VERT_X_POS)); } //This is a seperate method, not in the loop glm::vec3* translateVertices(const glm::vec3 data[], uint16 x, uint16 y, uint16 z) { glm::vec3* copy = new glm::vec3[6]; memcpy(&copy, &data, sizeof(data)); for(int i = 0; i < 6; i++) copy[i] += glm::vec3(x, -y, z); //Make +y go down instead return copy; } I cannot see where the blocks may be getting offset by more than they should be, and certainly not why the offsets are a power of 2. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Are there any preexisting maps for a Minecraft-like level I could use in my engine?

  - by Rishav Sharan

  I am working on a tiny cube-based engine like Minecraft. I was wondering if there is a way for me to get large blocky terrain in a text format that I can use for rendering on my engine? I don't want to start on procedural generation now, I just want a resource where I can get the coord list for a pretty looking terrain. Alternatively, is it possible for me to parse the Minecraft world files and use that data to generate terrain/buildings in my code?

  Read the article

• Minecraft style XNA game collision?

  - by Levi

  I've been trying to get this working for ages now, I can detect if there's a solid block at any place on the map and I can check how far something is inside of it, but I don't understand how to fix the collision. I've tried loads of ways and all of them end up by the player getting stuck, glitching around, incorrect responses and I really have no idea how to go about this :/. int Chnk = Utility.GetChunkFromPosition(origin); if (Chnk == -1) return; Vector3 Pos = Utility.GetCubeVectorFromPosition(origin); if (GlobalWorld.LoadedChunks[Chnk].Blocks[(byte)Pos.X, (byte)Pos.Y, (byte)Pos.Z] != 0) { isInIllegalState = true; if (velocity.Y < 0f) velocity.Y = 0f; } while (isInIllegalState) { if (GlobalWorld.LoadedChunks[Chnk].Blocks[(byte)Pos.X, (byte)origin.Y, (byte)Pos.Z] != 0) origin.Y = (int)(origin.Y + 1); else isInIllegalState = false; } if (origin.Y < Chunk.YSize - 2 && GlobalWorld.LoadedChunks[Chnk].Blocks[(byte)Pos.X, (byte)(origin.Y + playerHeight.Y), (byte)Pos.Z] != 0) { velocity.Y = 0f; //Acceleration.Y = 0f; origin.Y = (int)origin.Y;// -0.5f; } for (int x = -1; x <= 1; x+=2) { for (int z = -1; z <= 1; z += 2) { Vector3 CornerPosition = new Vector3(boundingSize * x, 0, boundingSize * z); bool CorrectX = false; bool CorrectZ = false; Vector3 RoundedOrigin = Utility.RoundVector(origin); Vector3 RoundedCorner = Utility.RoundVector(origin + CornerPosition); byte BlockAdjacent = Utility.GetCubeFromPosition(origin + CornerPosition); if (BlockAdjacent == 0) continue; if (RoundedCorner.X != RoundedOrigin.X && RoundedCorner.Z != RoundedOrigin.Z) { CorrectX = true; CorrectZ = true; } if (RoundedCorner.Z != RoundedOrigin.Z && RoundedCorner.X == RoundedOrigin.X) CorrectZ = true; if (RoundedCorner.X != RoundedOrigin.X && RoundedCorner.Z == RoundedOrigin.Z) CorrectX = true; if (CorrectX && CornerPosition.X > 0) { if (origin.X > 0f) origin.X = (int)(origin.X + 1) - boundingSize; else origin.X = (int)origin.X - boundingSize; } else if (CorrectX && CornerPosition.X < 0) { if (origin.X > 0f) origin.X = (int)(origin.X) + boundingSize; else origin.X = (int)(origin.X - 1) + boundingSize; } if (CorrectZ && CornerPosition.Z > 0) { if (origin.Z > 0f) origin.Z = (int)(origin.Z + 1) - boundingSize; else origin.Z = (int)origin.Z - boundingSize; } else if (CorrectZ && CornerPosition.Z < 0) { if (origin.Z > 0f) origin.Z = (int)(origin.Z) + boundingSize; else origin.Z = (int)(origin.Z - 1) + boundingSize; } } }

  Read the article

• Square game map rendered as sphere

  - by Roflha

  For a hobby project of mine I have created a finite voxel world (similar to Minecraft), but as I said, mine is finite. When you reach the edge of it, you are sent to the other side. That is all working fine along with rendering the far side of the map, but I want to be able to render this grid as a sphere. Looking down from above, the world is a square. I basically want to be able to represent a portion of that square as a sphere, as if you were looking at a planet. Right now I am experimenting with taking a circular section of the map, and rendering that, but it look to flat (no curvature around the edges). My question then, is what would be the best way to add some curvature to the edges of a 2d circle to make it look like a hemisphere. However, I am not overly attached to this implementation so if somebody has some other idea for representing the square as a planet, I am all ears.

  Read the article

• How to improve Minecraft-esque voxel world performance?

  - by SomeXnaChump

  After playing Minecraft I marveled a bit at its large worlds but at the same time I found them extremely slow to navigate, even with a quad core and meaty graphics card. Now I assume Minecraft is fairly slow because: A) It's written in Java, and as most of the spatial partitioning and memory management activities happen in there, it would naturally be slower than a native C++ version. B) It doesn't partition its world very well. I could be wrong on both assumptions; however it got me thinking about the best way to manage large voxel worlds. As it is a true 3D world, where a block can exist in any part of the world, it is basically a big 3D array [x][y][z], where each block in the world has a type (i.e BlockType.Empty = 0, BlockType.Dirt = 1 etc.) Now, I am assuming to make this sort of world perform well you would need to: A) Use a tree of some variety (oct/kd/bsp) to split all the cubes out; it seems like an oct/kd would be the better option as you can just partition on a per cube level not a per triangle level. B) Use some algorithm to work out which blocks can currently be seen, as blocks closer to the user could obfuscate the blocks behind, making it pointless to render them. C) Keep the block object themselves lightweight, so it is quick to add and remove them from the trees. I guess there is no right answer to this, but I would be interested to see peoples' opinions on the subject. How would you improve performance in a large voxel-based world?

  Read the article

• Creating a voxel chunk with a VBO - How to translate the coordinates of each block and add it to the VBO chunk?

  - by sunsunsunsunsun

  Im trying to make a voxel engine similar to minecraft as a little learning experience and a way to learn some opengl. I have created a chunk class and I want to put all of the vertices for the whole chunk into a single VBO. I was previously only putting each block into a vbo and making a call to render each block. Anyways, I am a bit confused about how I can translate the coordinates of each block in the chunk when I'm putting all vertices into one vbo. This is what I have at the moment. public void putVertices(float tx, float ty, float tz) { float l_length = 1.0f; float l_height = 1.0f; float l_width = 1.0f; vertexPositionData.put(new float[]{ xOffset + l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, l_height + ty,zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, -l_height + ty,zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, -l_height + ty,zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + -l_length + tx, -l_height + ty,zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, l_height + ty,zOffset + -l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + l_width + tz, xOffset + l_length + tx, -l_height + ty, zOffset + -l_width + tz }); } public void createChunk() { vertexPositionData = BufferUtils.createFloatBuffer((24*3)*activateBlocks); Random random = new Random(); for (int x = 0; x < CHUNK_SIZE; x++) { for (int y = 0; y < CHUNK_SIZE; y++) { for (int z = 0; z < CHUNK_SIZE; z++) { if(blocks[x][y][z].getActive()) { putVertices(x*2.0f, y*2.0f, z*2.0f); } } } } Whats any easy way to translate the vertices of each block into its correct position? I was previously using glTranslatef with each call to render block but this wont work now. What I am doing now also does not work, the blocks all render in stacks on top of each other and it looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/NyFtBTI.png Thanks

  Read the article

• Collision Detection problems in Voxel Engine (XNA)

  - by Darestium

  I am creating a minecraft like terrain engine in XNA and have had some collision problems for quite some time. I have checked and changed my code based on other peoples collision code and I still have the same problem. It always seems to be off by about a block. for instance, if I walk across a bridge which is one block high I fall through it. Also, if you walk towards a "row" of blocks like this: You are able to stand "inside" the left most one, and you collide with nothing in the right most side (where there is no block and is not visible on this image). Here is all my collision code: private void Move(GameTime gameTime, Vector3 direction) { float speed = playermovespeed * (float)gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.TotalSeconds; Matrix rotationMatrix = Matrix.CreateRotationY(player.Camera.LeftRightRotation); Vector3 rotatedVector = Vector3.Transform(direction, rotationMatrix); rotatedVector.Normalize(); Vector3 testVector = rotatedVector; testVector.Normalize(); Vector3 movePosition = player.position + testVector * speed; Vector3 midBodyPoint = movePosition + new Vector3(0, -0.7f, 0); Vector3 headPosition = movePosition + new Vector3(0, 0.1f, 0); if (!world.GetBlock(movePosition).IsSolid && !world.GetBlock(midBodyPoint).IsSolid && !world.GetBlock(headPosition).IsSolid) { player.position += rotatedVector * speed; } //player.position += rotatedVector * speed; } ... public void UpdatePosition(GameTime gameTime) { player.velocity.Y += playergravity * (float)gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.TotalSeconds; Vector3 footPosition = player.Position + new Vector3(0f, -1.5f, 0f); Vector3 headPosition = player.Position + new Vector3(0f, 0.1f, 0f); // If the block below the player is solid the Y velocity should be zero if (world.GetBlock(footPosition).IsSolid || world.GetBlock(headPosition).IsSolid) { player.velocity.Y = 0; } UpdateJump(gameTime); UpdateCounter(gameTime); ProcessInput(gameTime); player.Position = player.Position + player.velocity * (float)gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.TotalSeconds; velocity = Vector3.Zero; } and the one and only function in the camera class: protected void CalculateView() { Matrix rotationMatrix = Matrix.CreateRotationX(upDownRotation) * Matrix.CreateRotationY(leftRightRotation); lookVector = Vector3.Transform(Vector3.Forward, rotationMatrix); cameraFinalTarget = Position + lookVector; Vector3 cameraRotatedUpVector = Vector3.Transform(Vector3.Up, rotationMatrix); viewMatrix = Matrix.CreateLookAt(Position, cameraFinalTarget, cameraRotatedUpVector); } which is called when the rotation variables are changed: public float LeftRightRotation { get { return leftRightRotation; } set { leftRightRotation = value; CalculateView(); } } public float UpDownRotation { get { return upDownRotation; } set { upDownRotation = value; CalculateView(); } } World class: public Block GetBlock(int x, int y, int z) { if (InBounds(x, y, z)) { Vector3i regionalPosition = GetRegionalPosition(x, y, z); Vector3i region = GetRegionPosition(x, y, z); return regions[region.X, region.Y, region.Z].Blocks[regionalPosition.X, regionalPosition.Y, regionalPosition.Z]; } return new Block(BlockType.none); } public Vector3i GetRegionPosition(int x, int y, int z) { int regionx = x == 0 ? 0 : x / Variables.REGION_SIZE_X; int regiony = y == 0 ? 0 : y / Variables.REGION_SIZE_Y; int regionz = z == 0 ? 0 : z / Variables.REGION_SIZE_Z; return new Vector3i(regionx, regiony, regionz); } public Vector3i GetRegionalPosition(int x, int y, int z) { int regionx = x == 0 ? 0 : x / Variables.REGION_SIZE_X; int X = x % Variables.REGION_SIZE_X; int regiony = y == 0 ? 0 : y / Variables.REGION_SIZE_Y; int Y = y % Variables.REGION_SIZE_Y; int regionz = z == 0 ? 0 : z / Variables.REGION_SIZE_Z; int Z = z % Variables.REGION_SIZE_Z; return new Vector3i(X, Y, Z); } Any ideas how to fix this problem? EDIT 1: Graphic of the problem: EDIT 2 GetBlock, Vector3 version: public Block GetBlock(Vector3 position) { int x = (int)Math.Floor(position.X); int y = (int)Math.Floor(position.Y); int z = (int)Math.Ceiling(position.Z); Block block = GetBlock(x, y, z); return block; } Now, the thing is I tested the theroy that the Z is always "off by one" and by ceiling the value it actually works as intended. Altough it still could be greatly more accurate (when you go down holes you can see through the sides, and I doubt it will work with negitive positions). I also does not feel clean Flooring the X and Y values and just Ceiling the Z. I am surely not doing something correctly still.

  Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >