Search Results

Search found 102 results on 5 pages for 'culling'.

Page 1/5 | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • My frustum culling is culling from the wrong point [SOLVED]

    - by Xbetas
    I'm having problems with my frustum being in the wrong origin. It follows the rotation of my camera but not the position. In my camera class I'm generating a view-matrix: void Camera::Update() { UpdateViewMatrix(); glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW); //glLoadIdentity(); glLoadMatrixf(GetViewMatrix().m); } Then extracting the planes using the projection matrix and modelview matrix: void UpdateFrustum() { Matrix4x4 projection, model, clip; glGetFloatv(GL_PROJECTION_MATRIX, projection.m); glGetFloatv(GL_MODELVIEW_MATRIX, model.m); clip = model * projection; m_Planes[RIGHT][0] = clip.m[ 3] - clip.m[ 0]; m_Planes[RIGHT][1] = clip.m[ 7] - clip.m[ 4]; m_Planes[RIGHT][2] = clip.m[11] - clip.m[ 8]; m_Planes[RIGHT][3] = clip.m[15] - clip.m[12]; NormalizePlane(RIGHT); m_Planes[LEFT][0] = clip.m[ 3] + clip.m[ 0]; m_Planes[LEFT][1] = clip.m[ 7] + clip.m[ 4]; m_Planes[LEFT][2] = clip.m[11] + clip.m[ 8]; m_Planes[LEFT][3] = clip.m[15] + clip.m[12]; NormalizePlane(LEFT); m_Planes[BOTTOM][0] = clip.m[ 3] + clip.m[ 1]; m_Planes[BOTTOM][1] = clip.m[ 7] + clip.m[ 5]; m_Planes[BOTTOM][2] = clip.m[11] + clip.m[ 9]; m_Planes[BOTTOM][3] = clip.m[15] + clip.m[13]; NormalizePlane(BOTTOM); m_Planes[TOP][0] = clip.m[ 3] - clip.m[ 1]; m_Planes[TOP][1] = clip.m[ 7] - clip.m[ 5]; m_Planes[TOP][2] = clip.m[11] - clip.m[ 9]; m_Planes[TOP][3] = clip.m[15] - clip.m[13]; NormalizePlane(TOP); m_Planes[NEAR][0] = clip.m[ 3] + clip.m[ 2]; m_Planes[NEAR][1] = clip.m[ 7] + clip.m[ 6]; m_Planes[NEAR][2] = clip.m[11] + clip.m[10]; m_Planes[NEAR][3] = clip.m[15] + clip.m[14]; NormalizePlane(NEAR); m_Planes[FAR][0] = clip.m[ 3] - clip.m[ 2]; m_Planes[FAR][1] = clip.m[ 7] - clip.m[ 6]; m_Planes[FAR][2] = clip.m[11] - clip.m[10]; m_Planes[FAR][3] = clip.m[15] - clip.m[14]; NormalizePlane(FAR); } void NormalizePlane(int side) { float length = 1.0/(float)sqrt(m_Planes[side][0] * m_Planes[side][0] + m_Planes[side][1] * m_Planes[side][1] + m_Planes[side][2] * m_Planes[side][2]); m_Planes[side][0] *= length; m_Planes[side][1] *= length; m_Planes[side][2] *= length; m_Planes[side][3] *= length; } And check against it with: bool PointInFrustum(float x, float y, float z) { for(int i = 0; i < 6; i++) { if( m_Planes[i][0] * x + m_Planes[i][1] * y + m_Planes[i][2] * z + m_Planes[i][3] <= 0 ) return false; } return true; } Then i render using: camera->Update(); UpdateFrustum(); int numCulled = 0; for(int i = 0; i < (int)meshes.size(); i++) { if(!PointInFrustum(meshCenter.x, meshCenter.y, meshCenter.z)) { meshes[i]->SetDraw(false); numCulled++; } else meshes[i]->SetDraw(true); } Matrices look like (Camera is at (5, 0, 0)): ModelView [0,0,0.99,0] [0,1,0,0] [-0.99,0,0,0] [0,0,-5,1] Projection [0.814,0,0,0] [0,1.303,0,0] [0,0,-1,0] [0,0,-0.02,0] Clip [0,0,-1,-0.999] [0,1.30,0,0] [-0.814,0,0,0] [0,0,4.98,4.99] What am i doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • My frustum culling is culling from the wrong point

    - by Xbetas
    I'm having problems with my frustum being in the wrong origin. It follows the rotation of my camera but not the position. In my camera class I'm generating a view-matrix: void Camera::Update() { UpdateViewMatrix(); glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW); //glLoadIdentity(); glLoadMatrixf(GetViewMatrix().m); } Then extracting the planes using the projection matrix and modelview matrix: void UpdateFrustum() { Matrix4x4 projection, model, clip; glGetFloatv(GL_PROJECTION_MATRIX, projection.m); glGetFloatv(GL_MODELVIEW_MATRIX, model.m); clip = model * projection; m_Planes[RIGHT][0] = clip.m[ 3] - clip.m[ 0]; m_Planes[RIGHT][1] = clip.m[ 7] - clip.m[ 4]; m_Planes[RIGHT][2] = clip.m[11] - clip.m[ 8]; m_Planes[RIGHT][3] = clip.m[15] - clip.m[12]; NormalizePlane(RIGHT); m_Planes[LEFT][0] = clip.m[ 3] + clip.m[ 0]; m_Planes[LEFT][1] = clip.m[ 7] + clip.m[ 4]; m_Planes[LEFT][2] = clip.m[11] + clip.m[ 8]; m_Planes[LEFT][3] = clip.m[15] + clip.m[12]; NormalizePlane(LEFT); m_Planes[BOTTOM][0] = clip.m[ 3] + clip.m[ 1]; m_Planes[BOTTOM][1] = clip.m[ 7] + clip.m[ 5]; m_Planes[BOTTOM][2] = clip.m[11] + clip.m[ 9]; m_Planes[BOTTOM][3] = clip.m[15] + clip.m[13]; NormalizePlane(BOTTOM); m_Planes[TOP][0] = clip.m[ 3] - clip.m[ 1]; m_Planes[TOP][1] = clip.m[ 7] - clip.m[ 5]; m_Planes[TOP][2] = clip.m[11] - clip.m[ 9]; m_Planes[TOP][3] = clip.m[15] - clip.m[13]; NormalizePlane(TOP); m_Planes[NEAR][0] = clip.m[ 3] + clip.m[ 2]; m_Planes[NEAR][1] = clip.m[ 7] + clip.m[ 6]; m_Planes[NEAR][2] = clip.m[11] + clip.m[10]; m_Planes[NEAR][3] = clip.m[15] + clip.m[14]; NormalizePlane(NEAR); m_Planes[FAR][0] = clip.m[ 3] - clip.m[ 2]; m_Planes[FAR][1] = clip.m[ 7] - clip.m[ 6]; m_Planes[FAR][2] = clip.m[11] - clip.m[10]; m_Planes[FAR][3] = clip.m[15] - clip.m[14]; NormalizePlane(FAR); } void NormalizePlane(int side) { float length = 1.0/(float)sqrt(m_Planes[side][0] * m_Planes[side][0] + m_Planes[side][1] * m_Planes[side][1] + m_Planes[side][2] * m_Planes[side][2]); m_Planes[side][0] /= length; m_Planes[side][1] /= length; m_Planes[side][2] /= length; m_Planes[side][3] /= length; } And check against it with: bool PointInFrustum(float x, float y, float z) { for(int i = 0; i < 6; i++) { if( m_Planes[i][0] * x + m_Planes[i][1] * y + m_Planes[i][2] * z + m_Planes[i][3] <= 0 ) return false; } return true; } Then i render using: camera->Update(); UpdateFrustum(); int numCulled = 0; for(int i = 0; i < (int)meshes.size(); i++) { if(!PointInFrustum(meshCenter.x, meshCenter.y, meshCenter.z)) { meshes[i]->SetDraw(false); numCulled++; } else meshes[i]->SetDraw(true); } What am i doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • State of the art Culling and Batching techniques in rendering

    - by Kristian Skarseth
    I'm currently working with upgrading and restructuring an OpenGL render engine. The engine is used for visualising large scenes of architectural data (buildings with interior), and the amount of objects can become rather large. As is the case with any building, there is a lot of occluded objects within walls, and you naturally only see the objects that are in the same room as you, or the exterior if you are on the outside. This leaves a large number of objects that should be occluded through occlusion culling and frustum culling. At the same time there is a lot of repetative geometry that can be batched in renderbatches, and also a lot of objects that can be rendered with instanced rendering. The way I see it, it can be difficult to combine renderbatching and culling in an optimal fashion. If you batch too many objects in the same VBO it's difficult to cull the objects on the CPU in order to skip rendering that batch. At the same time if you skip the culling on the cpu, a lot of objects will be processed by the GPU while they are not visible. If you skip batching copletely in order to more easily cull on the CPU, there will be an unwanted high amount of render calls. I have done some research into existing techniques and theories as to how these problems are solved in modern graphics, but I have not been able to find any concrete solution. An idea a colleague and me came up with was restricting batches to objects relatively close to eachother e.g all chairs in a room or within a radius of n meeters. This could be simplified and optimized through use of oct-trees. Does anyone have any pointers to techniques used for scene managment, culling, batching etc in state of the art modern graphics engines?

    Read the article

  • backface culling error (in world space)

    - by acrilige
    I write simple software renderer. In my pipeline i have stage of backface culling. But looks like it has some error (see picture). I perform culling right after world transformation (is it correct?). (i can't insert picture in post coz i don't have enough points, so i just upload it (cube model): http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/bcerror.png/) Vector3F view_dir(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); std::vector<Triangle> to_remove; for (Triangle &t : m_triangles) { Vector4F e1 = t.v2 - t.v1; Vector4F e2 = t.v3 - t.v1; Vector3F normal( e1.y * e2.z - e1.z * e2.y, e1.z * e2.x - e1.x * e2.z, e1.x * e2.y - e1.y * e2.x ); normal.Normalize(); float dot = Dot(view_dir, normal); if (dot <= 0) to_remove.push_back(t); } for (Triangle& t : to_remove) m_triangles.erase(std::remove(m_triangles.begin(), m_triangles.end(), t), m_triangles.end()); Camera sits in origin and points in screen (RH). What is the reason? For better explanation i upload picture with cube rotation screenshots: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/bcmove.png/ UPDATED: The error occurs only when triangle has non-zero offset from origin UPDATED 2: If i process backface culling in clip space (after transforming all vertices with view and projection matrix), and just check z coordinate of triangle normal - it works perfect... Can i perform culing RIGHT BEFORE view/proj transforms? In this case looks like culling will not depends of projection and it's not right?.. UPDATED 3: I found answer and will post it in two hours - again coz of reputation lack.

    Read the article

  • Frustum culling with third person camera

    - by Christian Frantz
    I have a third person camera that contains two matrices: view and projection, and two Vector3's: camPosition and camTarget. I've read up on frustum culling and it makes it seem easy enough for a first person camera, but how would I implement this for a third person camera? I need to take into effect the objects I can see behind me too. How would I implement this into my camera class so it runs at the same time as my update method? public void CameraUpdate(Matrix objectToFollow) { camPosition = objectToFollow.Translation + (objectToFollow.Backward *backward) + (objectToFollow.Up * up); camTarget = objectToFollow.Translation; view = Matrix.CreateLookAt(camPosition, camTarget, Vector3.Up); } Can I just create another method within the class which creates a bounding sphere with a value from my camera and then uses the culling based on that? And if so, which value am I using to create the bounding sphere from? After this is implemented, I'm planning on using occlusion culling for the faces of my objects adjacent to other objects. Will using just one or the other make a difference? Or will both of them be better? I'm trying to keep my framerate as high as possible

    Read the article

  • Unity Frustum Culling Issue

    - by N0xus
    I'm creating a game that utilizes off center projection. I've got my game set up in a CAVE being rendered in a cluster, over 8 PC's with 4 of these PC's being used for each eye (this creates a stereoscopic effect). To help with alignment in the CAVE I've implemented an off center projection class. This class simply tells the camera what its top left, bottom left & bottom right corners are. From here, it creates a new projection matrix showing the the player the left and right of their world. However, inside Unity's editor, the camera is still facing forwards and, as a result the culling inside Unity isn't rendering half of the image that appears on the left and right screens. Does anyone know of a way to to either turn off the culling in Unity, or find a way to fix the projection matrix issue?

    Read the article

  • backface culling error

    - by acrilige
    I write simple software renderer. In my pipeline i have stage of backface culling. But looks like it has some error (see picture). I perform culling right after world transformation. (i can't insert picture in post coz i don't have enough points, so i just upload it (cube model): http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/bcerror.png/) Vector3F view_dir(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); std::vector<Triangle> to_remove; for (Triangle &t : m_triangles) { Vector4F e1 = t.v2 - t.v1; Vector4F e2 = t.v3 - t.v1; Vector3F normal( e1.y * e2.z - e1.z * e2.y, e1.z * e2.x - e1.x * e2.z, e1.x * e2.y - e1.y * e2.x ); normal.Normalize(); float dot = Dot(view_dir, normal); if (dot <= 0) to_remove.push_back(t); } for (Triangle& t : to_remove) m_triangles.erase(std::remove(m_triangles.begin(), m_triangles.end(), t), m_triangles.end()); Camera sits in origin and points in screen (RH). What is the reason?

    Read the article

  • Determine percentage of screen covered by an object without using frustum culling

    - by Meltac
    On the CPU-side of an 3D first-person / ego perspective game I need to check whether what the players currently sees on screen is the inside of a box object defined by world space coordinates (the player might be outside of that box but on screen sees only/mostly the inside of the box, or vice-versa, looks from within the box to the outside). The "casual" way of performing such a check would incorporate frustum culling but such an approach would be hard to achieve with my given set of engine parameters which I'd like to avoid if there is a simpler way. What I actually have at the point where I would like to do the check (high-level script on CPU, not GPU side): Camera world position Camera direction Camera FOV Two Box corner world coordinates (left-bottom-front, right-top-back) What I do not have right away: View frustrum definition (near/far plane or say 6 planes defining frustum) Any specific pixel information (uv, view space position, depth or the like) What I would like to calculate: Percentage of screen "covered" by box. Any hints on how to perform such calculation?

    Read the article

  • Deferred rendering with both Clockwise and CounterClockwise culling

    - by user1423893
    I have a deferred rendering system that works well with objects that appear solid and drawn using CounterClockwise culling. I have a problem with Clockwise culled objects that are supposed to represent hollow that display their inside faces only. The image below shows a CounterClockwise culled object (left) Clockwise culled object (right). The Clockwise culled object faces display what would be displayed on the CounterClockwise face. How can I get the lighting to light the inner faces for Clockwise culled objects and continue lighting the outer CounterClockwise faces as normal? My lighting method is below private void DeferredLighting(GameTime gameTime) { // Set the render target for the lights game.GraphicsDevice.SetRenderTarget(lightMap); // Clear the render target to (0, 0, 0, 0) game.GraphicsDevice.Clear(Color.Transparent); // Set the render states game.GraphicsDevice.BlendState = BlendState.Additive; game.GraphicsDevice.DepthStencilState = DepthStencilState.None; game.GraphicsDevice.RasterizerState = RasterizerState.CullCounterClockwise; // Set sampler state to Point as the Surface type requires it in XNA 4.0 game.GraphicsDevice.SamplerStates[0] = SamplerState.PointClamp; // Set the camera properties for all lights BaseLight.SetCameraProperties(game.ActiveCamera); // Draw the lights int numLights = lights.Count; for (int i = 0; i < numLights; ++i) { if (lights[i].Diffuse.W > 0f) { lights[i].Render(gameTime, ref normalMap, ref depthMap, ref sgrMap); } } // Resolve the render target game.GraphicsDevice.SetRenderTarget(null); } I have tried adjusting the render states but no combination works for both objects.

    Read the article

  • If I use my own normal values, should I turn off winding order culling?

    - by Phil
    I've discovered that I managed to program a series of boxes with indexed vertices in such a way that every other triangle (Half of each face) has a backwards winding order. As a result, XNA is culling half of them. However, my Vertex objects contain normal data that I have explicitly set, and I am going to implement my own backface culling shortly to reduce the size of the VertexBuffer. Should I turn off winding order culling and manage it myself, or should I make sure the winding order is consistent and let XNA handle it?

    Read the article

  • What is a good practice for 2D scene graph partitioning for culling?

    - by DevilWithin
    I need to know an efficient way to cull the scene graph objects, to render exclusively the ones in the view, and as fast as possible. I am thinking of doing it the following way, having in each object a local boundingbox which holds the object bounds, and a global boundingbox which holds the bounds of the object and all children. When a camera is moved, the render list is updated by traversing the global boundingboxes. When only the object is being moved, it tries to enlarge or shrink the ancestors global boundingboxes, and in the end updating or not the renderlist. What do you think of this approach? Do you think it will provide a fast and efficient culling? Also, because the render list is a contiguous list, it could accelerate the rendering, right? Any further tips for a 2D scene graphs are highly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Need some help implementing VBO's with Frustum Culling

    - by Isracg
    i'm currently developing my first 3D game for a school project, the game world is completely inspired by minecraft (world completely made out of cubes). I'm currently seeking to improve the performance trying to implement vertex buffer objects but i'm stuck, i already have this methods implemented: Frustum culling, only drawing exposed faces and distance culling but i have the following doubts: I currently have about 2^24 cubes in my world, divided in 1024 chunks of 16*16*64 cubes, right now i'm doing immediate mode rendering, which works well with frustum culling, if i implement one VBO per chunk, do i have to update that VBO each time i move the camera (to update the frustum)? is there a performance hit with this? Can i dynamically change the size of each VBO? of do i have to make each one the biggest possible size (the chunk completely filled with objects)?. Would i have to keep each visited chunk in memory or could i efficiently remove that VBO and recreated it when needed?.

    Read the article

  • How to cull liquids

    - by Cyral
    I use culling on my Tiles in my 2D Tile Based Platformer, so only ones needed are drawn on screen. Thats easy to do. However, My Liquid tiles (Water, lava, etc) require an Update Method aswell as the normal Draw, which does checks against tiles, makes it flow, etc. So how should I cull liquid updates in my game? Not culling is to slow, culling only on screen looks awkward when you move. What do you think would be best for the player? Maybe someway of culling the visible tiles PLUS also adding the width/height of the viewport to start culling tiles at a fast enough rate in front of the player so it dosent look awkward when moving? (Not sure how to do this though, something with MaxSpeed of player and width of screen)

    Read the article

  • Yet another frustum culling question

    - by Christian Frantz
    This one is kinda specific. If I'm to implement frustum culling in my game, that means each one of my cubes would need a bounding sphere. My first question is can I make the sphere so close to the edge of the cube that its still easily clickable for destroying and building? Frustum culling is easily done in XNA as I've recently learned, I just need to figure out where to place the code for the culling. I'm guessing in my method that draws all my cubes but I could be wrong. My camera class currently implements a bounding frustum which is in the update method like so frustum.Matrix = (view * proj); Simple enough, as I can call that when I have a camera object in my class. This works for now, as I only have a camera in my main game class. The problem comes when I decide to move my camera to my player class, but I can worry about that later. ContainmentType CurrentContainmentType = ContainmentType.Disjoint; CurrentContainmentType = CamerasFrustrum.Contains(cubes.CollisionSphere); Can it really be as easy as adding those two lines to my foreach loop in my draw method? Or am I missing something bigger here? UPDATE: I have added the lines to my draw methods and it works great!! So great infact that just moving a little bit removes the whole map. Many factors could of caused this, so I'll try to break it down. cubeBoundingSphere = new BoundingSphere(cubePosition, 0.5f); This is in my cube constructor. cubePosition is stored in an array, The vertices that define my cube are factors of 1 ie: (1,0,1) so the radius should be .5. I least I think it should. The spheres are created every time a cube is created of course. ContainmentType CurrentContainmentType = ContainmentType.Disjoint; foreach (Cube block in cube.cubes) { CurrentContainmentType = cam.frustum.Contains(cube.cubeBoundingSphere); ///more code here if (CurrentContainmentType != ContainmentType.Disjoint) { cube.Draw(effect); } Within my draw method. Now I know this works because the map disappears, its just working wrong. Any idea on what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Different bounding volumes for culling and collision detection

    - by Serthy
    Should an object in a 3D-engine use different bounding volumes for collision-detection (broad-phase) and culling? Basically class renderBounds and class physBounds versus class boundingVolume? Each of this classes then could either contain the same type of volumes (AABB's, kDOP's, sphere's etc.) or a special fitting one for the particular object. (note: without considering of using an external physics engine)

    Read the article

  • Octree implementation for fustrum culling

    - by Manvis
    I'm learning modern (=3.1) OpenGL by coding a 3D turn based strategy game, using C++. The maps are composed of 100x90 3D hexagon tiles that range from 50 to 600 tris (20 different types) + any player units on those tiles. My current rendering technique involves sorting meshes by shaders they use (minimizing state changes) and then calling glDrawElementsInstanced() for drawing. Still get solid 16.6 ms/frame on my GTX 560Ti machine but the game struggles (45.45 ms/frame) on an old 8600GT card. I'm certain that using an octree and fustrum culling will help me here, but I have a few questions before I start implementing it: Is it OK for an octree node to have multiple meshes in it (e.g. can a soldier and the hex tile he's standing on end up in the same octree node)? How is one supposed to treat changes in object postion (e.g. several units are moving 3 hexes down)? I can't seem to find good a explanation on how to do it. As I've noticed, soting meshes by shaders is a really good way to save GPU. If I put node contents into, let's say, std::list and sort it before rendering, do you think I would gain any performance, or would it just create overhead on CPU's end? I know that this sounds like early optimization and implementing + testing would be the best way to find out, but perhaps someone knows from experience?

    Read the article

  • problem with frustum AABB culling in DirectX

    - by Matthew Poole
    Hi, I am currently working on a project with a few friends, and I am trying to get frustum culling working. Every single tutorial or article I go to shows that my math is correct and that this should be working. I thought maybe posting here, somebody would catch something I could not. Thank you. Here are the important code snippets /create the projection matrix void CD3DCamera::SetLens(float fov, float aspect, float nearZ, float farZ) { D3DXMatrixPerspectiveFovLH(&projMat, D3DXToRadian(fov), aspect, nearZ, farZ); } //build the view matrix after changes have been made to camera void CD3DCamera::BuildView() { //keep axes orthoganal D3DXVec3Normalize(&look, &look); //up D3DXVec3Cross(&up, &look, &right); D3DXVec3Normalize(&up, &up); //right D3DXVec3Cross(&right, &up, &look); D3DXVec3Normalize(&right, &right); //fill view matrix float x = -D3DXVec3Dot(&position, &right); float y = -D3DXVec3Dot(&position, &up); float z = -D3DXVec3Dot(&position, &look); viewMat(0,0) = right.x; viewMat(1,0) = right.y; viewMat(2,0) = right.z; viewMat(3,0) = x; viewMat(0,1) = up.x; viewMat(1,1) = up.y; viewMat(2,1) = up.z; viewMat(3,1) = y; viewMat(0,2) = look.x; viewMat(1,2) = look.y; viewMat(2,2) = look.z; viewMat(3,2) = z; viewMat(0,3) = 0.0f; viewMat(1,3) = 0.0f; viewMat(2,3) = 0.0f; viewMat(3,3) = 1.0f; } void CD3DCamera::BuildFrustum() { D3DXMATRIX VP; D3DXMatrixMultiply(&VP, &viewMat, &projMat); D3DXVECTOR4 col0(VP(0,0), VP(1,0), VP(2,0), VP(3,0)); D3DXVECTOR4 col1(VP(0,1), VP(1,1), VP(2,1), VP(3,1)); D3DXVECTOR4 col2(VP(0,2), VP(1,2), VP(2,2), VP(3,2)); D3DXVECTOR4 col3(VP(0,3), VP(1,3), VP(2,3), VP(3,3)); // Planes face inward frustum[0] = (D3DXPLANE)(col2); // near frustum[1] = (D3DXPLANE)(col3 - col2); // far frustum[2] = (D3DXPLANE)(col3 + col0); // left frustum[3] = (D3DXPLANE)(col3 - col0); // right frustum[4] = (D3DXPLANE)(col3 - col1); // top frustum[5] = (D3DXPLANE)(col3 + col1); // bottom // Normalize the frustum for( int i = 0; i < 6; ++i ) D3DXPlaneNormalize( &frustum[i], &frustum[i] ); } bool FrustumCheck(D3DXVECTOR3 max, D3DXVECTOR3 min, const D3DXPLANE* frustum) { // Test assumes frustum planes face inward. D3DXVECTOR3 P; D3DXVECTOR3 Q; bool ret = false; for(int i = 0; i < 6; ++i) { // For each coordinate axis x, y, z... for(int j = 0; j < 3; ++j) { // Make PQ point in the same direction as the plane normal on this axis. if( frustum[i][j] > 0.0f ) { P[j] = min[j]; Q[j] = max[j]; } else { P[j] = max[j]; Q[j] = min[j]; } } if(D3DXPlaneDotCoord(&frustum[i], &Q) < 0.0f ) ret = false; } return true; }

    Read the article

  • Improving the efficiency of frustum culling

    - by DeadMG
    I've got some code which performs frustum culling. However, this defines the "frustum" way too broadly- when I have ~10 objects on screen, the code returns 42 objects to be rendered. I've tried taking "slices" through the frustum to attempt to increase the accuracy of the technique, but it doesn't seem to have made much impact. I also significantly reduced the far plane, so that the objects are barely at the edge. Here's my code (where size is the size in screen space- the resolution of the client area of the window I'm rendering into). Any suggestions? auto&& size = GetDimensions(); D3DVIEWPORT9 vp = { 0, 0, size.x, size.y, 0, 1 }; D3DCALL(device->SetViewport(&vp)); static const int slices = 10; std::vector<Object*> result; for(int i = 0; i < slices; i++) { D3DXVECTOR3 WorldSpaceFrustrumPoints[8] = { D3DXVECTOR3(0, size.y, static_cast<float>(i) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(size.x, 0, static_cast<float>(i) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(size.x, size.y, static_cast<float>(i) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(0, 0, static_cast<float>(i) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(0, 0, static_cast<float>(i + 1) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(size.x, 0, static_cast<float>(i + 1) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(size.x, size.y, static_cast<float>(i + 1) / slices), D3DXVECTOR3(0, size.y, static_cast<float>(i + 1) / slices) }; D3DXMATRIXA16 Identity; D3DXMatrixIdentity(&Identity); D3DXVec3UnprojectArray( WorldSpaceFrustrumPoints, sizeof(D3DXVECTOR3), WorldSpaceFrustrumPoints, sizeof(D3DXVECTOR3), &vp, &Projection, &View, &Identity, 8 ); Math::AABB Frustrum; auto world_begin = std::begin(WorldSpaceFrustrumPoints); auto world_end = std::end(WorldSpaceFrustrumPoints); auto world_initial = WorldSpaceFrustrumPoints[0]; Frustrum.BottomLeftClosest.x = std::accumulate(world_begin, world_end, world_initial, [](D3DXVECTOR3 lhs, D3DXVECTOR3 rhs) { return lhs.x < rhs.x ? lhs : rhs; }).x; Frustrum.BottomLeftClosest.y = std::accumulate(world_begin, world_end, world_initial, [](D3DXVECTOR3 lhs, D3DXVECTOR3 rhs) { return lhs.y < rhs.y ? lhs : rhs; }).y; Frustrum.BottomLeftClosest.z = std::accumulate(world_begin, world_end, world_initial, [](D3DXVECTOR3 lhs, D3DXVECTOR3 rhs) { return lhs.z < rhs.z ? lhs : rhs; }).z; Frustrum.TopRightFurthest.x = std::accumulate(world_begin, world_end, world_initial, [](D3DXVECTOR3 lhs, D3DXVECTOR3 rhs) { return lhs.x > rhs.x ? lhs : rhs; }).x; Frustrum.TopRightFurthest.y = std::accumulate(world_begin, world_end, world_initial, [](D3DXVECTOR3 lhs, D3DXVECTOR3 rhs) { return lhs.y > rhs.y ? lhs : rhs; }).y; Frustrum.TopRightFurthest.z = std::accumulate(world_begin, world_end, world_initial, [](D3DXVECTOR3 lhs, D3DXVECTOR3 rhs) { return lhs.z > rhs.z ? lhs : rhs; }).z; auto slices_result = ObjectTree.collision(Frustrum); result.insert(result.end(), slices_result.begin(), slices_result.end()); } return result;

    Read the article

  • Early Z culling - Ogre

    - by teodron
    This question is concerned with how one can enable this "pixel filter" to work within an Ogre based app. Simply put, one can write two passes, the first without writing any colour values to the frame buffer lighting off colour_write off shading flat The second pass is the one that employs heavy pixel shader computations, hence it would be really nice to get rid of those hidden surface patches and not process them pixel-wise. This approach works, except for one thing: objects with alpha, such as billboard trees suffer in a peculiar way - from one side, they seem to capture the sky/background within their alpha region and ignore other trees/houses behind them, while viewed from the other side, they exhibit the desired behavior. To tackle the issue, I thought I could write a custom vertex shader in the first pass and offset the projected Z component of the vertex a little further away from its actual position, so that in the second pass there is a need to recompute correctly the pixels of the objects closest to the camera. This doesn't work at all, all surfaces are processed in the pixel shader and there is no performance gain. So, if anyone has done a similar trick with Ogre and alpha objects, kindly please help.

    Read the article

  • With 2 superposed cameras at different depths and switching their culling masks between layers to implement object-selective antialising:

    - by user36845
    We superposed two cameras, one of which uses AA as post-processing effect (AA filtering is cancelled). The camera with the AA effect has depth 0 and the camera with no effect has depth 1 as can be seen in the 5th and 6th Picture. The objects seen on the left are in layer 1 and the ones on the right are in layer 2. We then wrote a script that switches the culling masks of the cameras between the two layers at the push of buttons 1 and 2 respectively, and accomplishes object-selective antialiasing as seen in the first the three pictures. (The way two cameras separately switch culling masks between layers is illustrated in pictures 7,8 & 9.) HOWEVER, after making the environment 3D (see pictures 1-4), by parenting the 2 cameras under First-Person Controller, we started moving around in the environment and stumbled upon a big issue: When we look at the objects from such an angle as in the 4th Picture and we want to apply antialiasing to the first object (object on the left) which stands closer to our cameras now, the culling mask of 1st camera which is at depth 0, has to be switched to that object’s layer while the second object has to be in the culling mask of the 2nd camera at depth 1. And since the two image outputs of two superposed cameras are laid on top of one another; we obtain the erroneous/unrealistic result of the object farther in the back appearing closer to the camera than the front object (see 4th Picture). We already tried switching depths of cameras so that the 1st camera –with AA- now has depth 1 and the second has depth 0; BUT the camera with the AA effect Works in such a way that it applies the AA effect to its full view. So; the camera with the AA effect always has to remain at the lowest depth and the layer of the object to be antialiased has to be then assigned to the culling mask of the AA camera; otherwise all objects in the AA camera’s view (the two cubes in our case) become antialised, which we don’t want. So; how can we resolve this? The pictures are below and in the comments since each post can have 2 pics: Pic 1. No button is pushed: Both objects seem aliased. Pic 2. Button 1 is pushed: Left (1st) object is antialiased. 2nd object remains aliased. Pic 3. Button 2 is pushed: Right (2nd) object is antialiased. 1st object remains aliased. Pic 4. The problematic result in 3D, when using two superposed cameras with different depths Pic 5. Camera 1’s properties can be seen: using AA post-processing and its depth is 0 Pic 6. Camera 2’s properties can be seen: NOT using AA post-processing and its depth is 1 Pic 7. When no button is pushed, both objects are in the culling mask of Camera 2 and are aliased Pic 8. When pushed 1, camera 1 (bottom) shows the 1st object and camera 2 (top) shows the 2nd Pic 9. When pushed 2, camera 1 (bottom) shows the 2nd object and camera 2 (top) shows the 1st

    Read the article

  • Making XNA Play Nice With 3DS Max, Boundiing Spheres

    - by Jason R. Mick
    I'm using 3DS Max 2010 with the KW x-porter plugin, which outputs a .X file (just downloaded the very latest version). Been getting some odd results: http://www.picvalley.net/u/2930/2265240220441812321333990933PAStFeSONWQslOrMQC5q.PNG Looks like the culling is screwed up. Note, that models I make in Milkshape don't seem to be having these problems. I've also tried to export an FBX file from 3DS Max 2010 and have been getting similar results. What are your suggestions in terms of exporting *.3DS models to a workable XNA form? What tools do you use?. To be clear, the model in question has none of these defects when viewed from similar angles in 3DS Max 2010. http://www.picvalley.net/u/2563/151728957814855401111333991302mSvEJ03Zv22GwHFgIhiV.PNG Any ideas on this oddity would also be appreciated! Edit 1 -- Add'l issue Forgot to mention, that the model otherwise seems alright, but that rotation seems to double -- in other words, when I scroll my camera view left to right, the model (whose draw I give the camera for the view and perspective matrices w/ BasicEffect seems to rotate twice as much as models I draw natively in XNA

    Read the article

  • Unity3D - Projection matrix camera frustum

    - by MulletDevil
    I've used off centre projection to create a custom projection matrix for my camera. When I run the game I can see the scene correctly in the game view but in the editor view the camera frustum is not correct. It still shows the original frustum shape not the new one. It also appears that Unity is using the original frustum for frustum culling and not the new one as I can see object being culled which are visible to the new frustum but would not be visible in the old one. Am I wrong in thinking that a custom projection matrix would alter the view frustum? Or am I missing something else?

    Read the article

  • Double sides face with two normals

    - by Marnix
    I think this isn't possible, but I just want to check this: Is it possible to create a face in opengl that has two normals? So: I want the inside and outside of some cilinder to be drawn, but I want the lights to do as expected and not calculate it for the normal given. I was trying to do this with backface culling off, so I would have both faces, but the light was wrongly calculated of course. Is this possible, or do I have to draw an inside and an outside? So draw twice?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >