i want to create a shader that can cover a surface with "circles" from many random positions.
the circles keep growing until all surface covered with them.
here my first try with amplify shader editor.
the problem is i don't know how make this shader that create array of "point maker" with random positions.also i want to controll circles with
c# example:
point_maker = new point_maker[10];
point_maker[1].position = Vector2.one;
point_maker[1].scale = 1;
and etc ...
Heads-up: That's probably not the way to do what you're looking for, as every pixel in your shader would need to loop over all your input points, while each of those pixels will only be covered by one at most. It's a classic case of embracing the benefits of the parallel nature of shaders. (The keyword for me here is 'random', as in 'random looking').
There's 2 distinct problems here: generating circles, and masking them.
I would go onto generating a grid out of your input space (most likely your UV coordinates so I'll assume that from here), by taking the fractional part of the coords scaled by some value: UV (usually) go between 0 and 1, so if you want 100 circles you'd multiply the coord by 10. You now have a grid of 100 pieces of UVs, where you can do something similar to what you have to generate the circle (tip: dot product a vector on itself gives the square distance, which is much cheaper to compute).
You want some randomness, so you need to add some offset to the center of the circle. You need some sort of random number (there might be some in ASE I can't remember, or make one your own - there's plenty of that you look online) that is unique per cell of the grid. To do this you'd input the remainder of your frac() as value to your hash/random method. You also need to limit that offset depending on the radius of the circle so it doesn't touch the sides of the cell. You can overlay more than one layer of circles if you want more coverage as well.
Second step is to figure out if you want to display those circles at all, and for this you could make the drawing conditional to the distance from the center of the circle to an input coordinate you provide to the shader, by some threshold. (it doesn't have to be an 'if' condition per se, it could be clamping the value to the bg color or something)
I'm making a lot of assumptions on what you want to do here, and if you have stronger conditions on the point distribution you might be better off rendering quads to a render texture for example, but that's a whole other topic :)
Related
As the title suggests I want to use perlin noise to make a randomly generated terrain using tiles that I have made with a pixel width of 32x32, I've had a little look at perlin noise but it seems very confusing and it would be great if anyone could point me into a good direction
I'll give some details into what i want to add into the game if that is needed
it will be a sort of like Minecraft game but topdown 2d, it will have the normal stuff like grass, water, sand, dirt, trees, bushes, rocks, forests, maybe already made structures? like towns or something but that would probably be used with a different type of noise I would think
Hopefully all that helps and thank you for any help you can give!
I'll simplify your case to a black/white example where your map only consists of two types of tiles, e.g. grass and sand.
Now you can go over your map and determine for every tile if it should be sand or grass by sampling the noise function at the position of the tile; if your noise creates values in the range [0, 1] you could just split it in the middle and say every tile with a value below .5 is sand, every other tile is grass.
Now a next step to consider is how to handle edges. There are two possibilities to take here.
Addendum: I think Unity has out-of-the-box solutions for this, but in case you want or have to implement it yourself:
1. Option: Have tiles for every neighbour-combination: If you look at this tileset from Pokemon, you see in the top left corner a sand tile. This can be used in case all eight neighbours are also sand. Next to it is a tile with a grass edge on the left. This can be used for the case that all three left neighbours are grass, like this:
🟩🟨🟨
🟩❌🟨
🟩🟨🟨
And that pattern goes on. you basically have a tile option for every 8² possible neighbour-combinations. (Note that Pokemon does not have all combinations).
Also notable here is that you have a clear 'background'-tile. In Pokemons case the grass. The edges are drawn onto the sand tiles.
2. Option: Have tiles for in between your sampled points. This is called Wang-Tiles, more details here.
Adding more than two types of tiles
If you want more than two types of tiles you have also multiple options.
1. Option: Multiple tile types from one noise function. You could sample your noise function kind of like a heightmap and say everything below .2 is water, everything between .2 and .3 is sand, between .3 and .8 is grass and above .8 is snow. This just uses one noise function, so it is rather simple, but you will likely recognize the layers (meaning snow will never be generated next to sand or water).
2. Option: A multi-noise biome system (like minecraft does if I'm not mistaken). You can e.g. use two separate noise functions to sample temperature and precipitation (again, like minecraft if I'm not mistaken) and then look up the value on a chart to determine the biome (which can determine the ground tile type). Here is an example of such a biome map:
3. Option: This is just a placeholder to tell you that there are other (infinite) ways to determine the floor texture for your game. Have a look at my collection of resources, I'm sure you'll find something there.
Mix your methods!
In the end what you probably want to go for is complex logic to determine your ground type. Mix and match the methods you find. E.g. use some biome map, but additionally a height map to determine where water is. Or add another noise layer that determines corruption from an evil force. Or you have a separate noise functions for vegetation. The possibilities are endless.
I'm creating a puzzle game that generates random sized pieces with 2D meshes. The images contain transparent portions and sometimes a piece is completely transparent. I need to detect what percentage of a piece is transparent. One way I found to do this is to go pixel by pixel. I posted my solution to this HERE. However, this process adds a few seconds during loading which I'd like to avoid and I'm looking for other ideas
I've considered using the selection outline of a MeshCollider to somehow to get a surface area I can compare to the surface area of the mesh but everything I find is on the rendering of outline with specialized shaders. Does anyone have any ideas on to solve this?
.
1) I guess you could add a PolygonCollider2D to your sprite and use its Path for the outline and calculation of the surface area. Not sure however if this will be faster.
PolygonCollider2D.GetPath:
A path is a cyclic sequence of line segments between points that define the outline of the Collider
Checking PolygonCollider2D.GetTotalPointCount or path length may be good enough to determine if the sprite is 'empty'.
Sprite.vertices, Sprite.triangles may also be helpful.
2) You could also improve performance of your first approach:
instead of calling GetPixel as you do now use GetPixels or GetPixels32 and loop through the array in one for loop.
Using GetPixels can be faster than calling GetPixel repeatedly, especially for large textures. In addition, GetPixels can access individual mipmap levels. For most textures, even faster is to use GetPixels32 which returns low precision color data without costly integer-to-float conversions.
check only every 2nd or nth pixel as it should be good enough for approximation
limit number of type casts
In my web application I only need to add static objects to my scene. It worked slow so I started searching and I found that merging geometries and merging vertices were the solution. When I implemented it, it indeed worked a lot better. All the articles said that the reason for this improvement is the decrease in number of WebGL calls. As I am not very familiar with things like OpenGL and WebGL (I use Three.js to avoid their complexity), I would like to know why exactly it reduces the WebGL calls?
Because you send one large object instead of many littles, the overhead reduces. So I understand that loading one big mesh to the scene goes faster than many small meshes.
BUT I do not understand why merging geometries also has a positive influence on the rendering calculation? I would also like to know the difference between merging geometries and merging vertices?
Thanks in advance!
three.js is a framework that helps you work with the WebGL API.
What a "mesh" is to three.js, to webgl, it's a series of low level calls that set up state and issue calls to the GPU.
Let's take a sphere for example. With three.js you would create it with a few lines:
var sphereGeometry = new THREE.SphereGeometry(10);
var sphereMaterial = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color:'red'});
var sphereMesh = new THREE.Mesh( sphereGeometry, sphereMaterial);
myScene.add( sphereMesh );
You have your renderer.render() call, and poof, a sphere appears on screen.
A lot of stuff happens under the hood though.
The first line, creates the sphere "geometry" - the cpu will a bunch of math and logic describing a sphere with points and triangles. Points are vectors, three floats grouped together, triangles are a structure that groups these points by indecis (groups of integers).
Somewhere there is a loop that calculates the vectors based on trigonometry (sin, cos), and another, that weaves the resulting array of vectors into triangles (take every N , N + M , N + 2M, create a triangle etc).
Now these numbers exist in javascript land, it's just a bunch of floats and ints, grouped together in a specific way to describe shapes such as cubes, spheres and aliens.
You need a way to draw this construct on a screen - a two dimensional array of pixels.
WebGL does not actually know much about 3D. It knows how to manage memory on the gpu, how to compute things in parallel (or gives you the tools), it does know how to do mathematical operations that are crucial for 3d graphics, but the same math can be used to mine bitcoins, without even drawing anything.
In order for WebGL to draw something on screen, it first needs the data put into appropriate buffers, it needs to have the shader programs, it needs to be setup for that specific call (is there going to be blending - transparency in three.js land, depth testing, stencil testing etc), then it needs to know what it's actually drawing (so you need to provide strides, sizes of attributes etc to let it know where a 'mesh' actually is in memory), how it's drawing it (triangle strips, fans, points...) and what to draw it with - which shaders will it apply on the data you provided.
So, you need a way to 'teach' WebGL to do 3d.
I think the best way to get familiar with this concept is to look at this tutorial , re-reading if necessary, because it explains what happens pretty much on every single 3d object in perspective, ever.
To sum up the tutorial:
a perspective camera is basically two 4x4 matrices - a perspective matrix, that puts things into perspective, and a view matrix, that moves the entire world into camera space. Every camera you make, consists of these two matrices.
Every object exists in it's object space. TRS matrix, (world matrix in three.js terms) is used to transform this object into world space.
So this stuff - a concept such as "projective matrix" is what teaches webgl how to draw perspective.
Three.js abstracts this further and gives you things like "field of view" and "aspect ratio" instead of left right, top bottom.
Three.js also abstracts the transformation matrices (view matrix on the camera, and world matrices on every object) because it allows you to set "position" and "rotation" and computes the matrix based on this under the hood.
Since every mesh has to be processed by the vertex shader and the pixel shader in order to appear on the screen, every mesh needs to have all this information available.
When a draw call is being issued for a specific mesh, that mesh will have the same perspective matrix, and view matrix as any other object being rendered with the same camera. They will each have their own world matrices - numbers that move them around around your scene.
This is transformation alone, happening in the vertex shader. These results are then rasterized, and go to the pixel shader for processing.
Lets consider two materials - black plastic and red plastic. They will have the same shader, perhaps one you wrote using THREE.ShaderMaterial, or maybe one from three's library. It's the same shader, but it has one uniform value exposed - color. This allows you to have many instances of a plastic material, green, blue, pink, but it means that each of these requires a separate draw call.
Webgl will have to issue specific calls to change that uniform from red to black, and then it's ready to draw stuff using that 'material'.
So now imagine a particle system, displaying a thousand cubes each with a unique color. You have to issue a thousand draw calls to draw them all, if you treat them as separate meshes and change colors via a uniform.
If on the other hand, you assign vertex colors to each cube, you don't rely on the uniform any more, but on an attribute. Now if you merge all the cubes together, you can issue a single draw call, processing all the cubes with the same shader.
You can see why this is more efficient simply by taking a glance at webglrenderer from three.js, and all the stuff it has to do in order to translate your 3d calls to webgl. Better done once than a thousand times.
Back to those 3 lines, the sphereMaterial can take a color argument, if you look at the source, this will translate to a uniform vec3 in the shader. However, you can also achieve the same thing by rendering the vertex colors, and assigning the color you want before hand.
sphereMesh will wrap that computed geometry into an object that three's webglrenderer understands, which in turn sets up webgl accordingly.
I'm developing an image warping iOS app with OpenGL ES 2.0.
I have a good grasp on the setup, the pipeline, etc., and am now moving along to the math.
Since my experience with image warping is nil, I'm reaching out for some algorithm suggestions.
Currently, I'm setting the initial vertices at points in a grid type fashion, which equally divide the image into squares. Then, I place an additional vertex in the middle of each of those squares. When I draw the indices, each square contains four triangles in the shape of an X. See the image below:
After playing with photoshop a little, I noticed adobe uses a slightly more complicated algorithm for their puppet warp, but a much more simplified algorithm for their standard warp. What do you think is best for me to apply here / personal preference?
Secondly, when I move a vertex, I'd like to apply a weighted transformation to all the other vertices to smooth out the edges (instead of what I have below, where only the selected vertex is transformed). What sort of algorithm should I apply here?
As each vertex is processed independently by the vertex shader, it is not easy to have vertexes influence each other's positions. However, because there are not that many vertexes it should be fine to do the work on the CPU and dynamically update your vertex attributes per frame.
Since what you are looking for is for your surface to act like a rubber sheet as parts of it are pulled, how about going ahead and implementing a dynamic simulation of a rubber sheet? There are plenty of good articles on cloth simulation in full 3D such as Jeff Lander's. Your application could be a simplification of these techniques. I have previously implemented a simulation like this in 3D. I required a force attracting my generated vertexes to their original grid locations. You could have a similar force attracting vertexes to the pixels at which they are generated before the simulation is begun. This would make them spring back to their default state when left alone and would progressively reduce the influence of your dragging at more distant vertexes.
The Screen-to-world problem on the iPhone
I have a 3D model (CUBE) rendered in an EAGLView and I want to be able to detect when I am touching the center of a given face (From any orientation angle) of the cube. Sounds pretty easy but it is not...
The problem:
How do I accurately relate screen-coordinates (touch point) to world-coordinates (a location in OpenGL 3D space)? Sure, converting a given point into a 'percentage' of the screen/world-axis might seem the logical fix, but problems would arise when I need to zoom or rotate the 3D space. Note: rotating & zooming in and out of the 3D space will change the relationship of the 2D screen coords with the 3D world coords...Also, you'd have to allow for 'distance' in between the viewpoint and objects in 3D space. At first, this might seem like an 'easy task', but that changes when you actually examine the requirements. And I've found no examples of people doing this on the iPhone. How is this normally done?
An 'easy' task?:
Sure, one might undertake the task of writing an API to act as a go-between between screen and world, but the task of creating such a framework would require some serious design and would likely take 'time' to do -- NOT something that can be one-manned in 4 hours...And 4 hours happens to be my deadline.
The question:
What are some of the simplest ways to
know if I touched specific locations
in 3D space in the iPhone OpenGL ES
world?
You can now find gluUnProject in http://code.google.com/p/iphone-glu/. I've no association with the iphone-glu project and haven't tried it yet myself, just wanted to share the link.
How would you use such a function? This PDF mentions that:
The Utility Library routine gluUnProject() performs this reversal of the transformations. Given the three-dimensional window coordinates for a location and all the transformations that affected them, gluUnProject() returns the world coordinates from where it originated.
int gluUnProject(GLdouble winx, GLdouble winy, GLdouble winz,
const GLdouble modelMatrix[16], const GLdouble projMatrix[16],
const GLint viewport[4], GLdouble *objx, GLdouble *objy, GLdouble *objz);
Map the specified window coordinates (winx, winy, winz) into object coordinates, using transformations defined by a modelview matrix (modelMatrix), projection matrix (projMatrix), and viewport (viewport). The resulting object coordinates are returned in objx, objy, and objz. The function returns GL_TRUE, indicating success, or GL_FALSE, indicating failure (such as an noninvertible matrix). This operation does not attempt to clip the coordinates to the viewport or eliminate depth values that fall outside of glDepthRange().
There are inherent difficulties in trying to reverse the transformation process. A two-dimensional screen location could have originated from anywhere on an entire line in three-dimensional space. To disambiguate the result, gluUnProject() requires that a window depth coordinate (winz) be provided and that winz be specified in terms of glDepthRange(). For the default values of glDepthRange(), winz at 0.0 will request the world coordinates of the transformed point at the near clipping plane, while winz at 1.0 will request the point at the far clipping plane.
Example 3-8 (again, see the PDF) demonstrates gluUnProject() by reading the mouse position and determining the three-dimensional points at the near and far clipping planes from which it was transformed. The computed world coordinates are printed to standard output, but the rendered window itself is just black.
In terms of performance, I found this quickly via Google as an example of what you might not want to do using gluUnProject, with a link to what might lead to a better alternative. I have absolutely no idea how applicable it is to the iPhone, as I'm still a newb with OpenGL ES. Ask me again in a month. ;-)
You need to have the opengl projection and modelview matrices. Multiply them to gain the modelview projection matrix. Invert this matrix to get a matrix that transforms clip space coordinates into world coordinates. Transform your touch point so it corresponds to clip coordinates: the center of the screen should be zero, while the edges should be +1/-1 for X and Y respectively.
construct two points, one at (0,0,0) and one at (touch_x,touch_y,-1) and transform both by the inverse modelview projection matrix.
Do the inverse of a perspective divide.
You should get two points describing a line from the center of the camera into "the far distance" (the farplane).
Do picking based on simplified bounding boxes of your models. You should be able to find ray/box intersection algorithms aplenty on the web.
Another solution is to paint each of the models in a slightly different color into an offscreen buffer and reading the color at the touch point from there, telling you which brich was touched.
Here's source for a cursor I wrote for a little project using bullet physics:
float x=((float)mpos.x/screensize.x)*2.0f -1.0f;
float y=((float)mpos.y/screensize.y)*-2.0f +1.0f;
p2=renderer->camera.unProject(vec4(x,y,1.0f,1));
p2/=p2.w;
vec4 pos=activecam.GetView().col_t;
p1=pos+(((vec3)p2 - (vec3)pos) / 2048.0f * 0.1f);
p1.w=1.0f;
btCollisionWorld::ClosestRayResultCallback rayCallback(btVector3(p1.x,p1.y,p1.z),btVector3(p2.x,p2.y,p2.z));
game.dynamicsWorld->rayTest(btVector3(p1.x,p1.y,p1.z),btVector3(p2.x,p2.y,p2.z), rayCallback);
if (rayCallback.hasHit())
{
btRigidBody* body = btRigidBody::upcast(rayCallback.m_collisionObject);
if(body==game.worldBody)
{
renderer->setHighlight(0);
}
else if (body)
{
Entity* ent=(Entity*)body->getUserPointer();
if(ent)
{
renderer->setHighlight(dynamic_cast<ModelEntity*>(ent));
//cerr<<"hit ";
//cerr<<ent->getName()<<endl;
}
}
}
Imagine a line that extends from the viewer's eye
through the screen touch point into your 3D model space.
If that line intersects any of the cube's faces, then the user has touched the cube.
Two solutions present themselves. Both of them should achieve the end goal, albeit by a different means: rather than answering "what world coordinate is under the mouse?", they answer the question "what object is rendered under the mouse?".
One is to draw a simplified version of your model to an off-screen buffer, rendering the center of each face using a distinct color (and adjusting the lighting so color is preserved identically). You can then detect those colors in the buffer (e.g. pixmap), and map mouse locations to them.
The other is to use OpenGL picking. There's a decent-looking tutorial here. The basic idea is to put OpenGL in select mode, restrict the viewport to a small (perhaps 3x3 or 5x5) window around the point of interest, and then render the scene (or a simplified version of it) using OpenGL "names" (integer identifiers) to identify the components making up each face. At the end of this process, OpenGL can give you a list of the names that were rendered in the selection viewport. Mapping these identifiers back to original objects will let you determine what object is under the mouse cursor.
Google for opengl screen to world (for example there’s a thread where somebody wants to do exactly what you are looking for on GameDev.net). There is a gluUnProject function that does precisely this, but it’s not available on iPhone, so that you have to port it (see this source from the Mesa project). Or maybe there’s already some publicly available source somewhere?