If I am not using lighting in my game in Unity3d and all models have lighting baked in their textures, then which of the two methods of importing models is better.
(import settings in Unity inspector).
importing models with no normals
importing with normals.
importing with calculate normals and setting the smoothing angle to 180.
The shader I'm using does not use normals so I don't have a problem with no normal importing.
The 1st method reduces the vertex count most. But I'm wondering if no normals reduces some of the optimisations such as back face culling etc.
In short which is the best settings for importing models if no lighting is used.
Importing without normals will work for the specific case you're mentioning: prelit models that don't do any shading at all. However, if you want any angle-based effects at all (fresnel highlights or toon shading, for example) you'll need normal information.
You will get better optimization on the model if you don't have normal information, since none of the verts will have to be split to handle edge creases.
If you have manually edited normals in Maya (particularly flipped normals or used 'conform') you may find that importing the mesh without normals causes triangle to revert to their natural orientation - which may affect your culling.
So: using no normals is ok for the limited case of lightmapped unshaded geo, but not for much else.
The "best" settings are specific to each model resource. If your mesh data represents a hard surface then you'll want to use the Maya smoothing angle so that you can fine-tune where the shading is blended in your output.
For organic shapes I've found that a smoothing angle of 89ยบ is best but your mileage may vary (it's entirely dependent upon the visual output you're looking for.)
Normals have nothing to do with backface culling in Unity3d. If you don't need them to draw your content smoothly; then you can discard them altogether.
Related
I have a point-cloud and a rgb texture that fit together from a depth camera. I procedurally created a mesh from a selected part of the point-cloud implementing the quickhull 3D algorithm for mesh creation.
Now, somehow I need to apply the texture that I have to that mesh. Note that there can be multiple selected parts of the point-cloud thus making multiple objects that need the texture. The texture is just a basic 720p file that should be applied to the mesh material.
Basically I have to do this: https://www.andreasjakl.com/capturing-3d-point-cloud-intel-realsense-converting-mesh-meshlab/ but inside Unity. (I'm also using a RealSense camera)
I tried with a decal shader but the result is not precise. The UV map is completely twisted from the creation process, and I'm not sure how to generate a correct one.
UV and the mesh
I only have two ideas but don't really know if they'll work/how to do them.
Try to create a correct UV and then wrap the texture around somehow
Somehow bake colors to vertices and then use vertex colors to create the desired effect.
What other things could I try?
I'm working on quite a similar problem. But in my case I just want to create a complete mesh from the point cloud. Not just a quickhull, because I don't want to lose any depth information.
I'm nearly done with the mesh algorithm (just need to do some optimizations). Quite challenging now is to match the RGB camera's texture with the depth camera sensor's point cloud, because they of course have a different viewport.
Intel RealSense provides an interesting whitepaper about this problem and as far as I know the SDK corrects these different perspectives with uv mapping and provides a red/green uv map stream for your shader.
Maybe the short report can help you out. Here's the link. I'm also very interested in what you are doing. Please keep us up to date.
Regards
I have a simple teapot mesh and a point cache animation that matches that mesh.
Everything is exported from 3DS Max.
When I try to load it into unity, and load the point cache into the mesh, there is a vertices mismatch.
Upon further debugging I saw that indeed unity adds more vertices than there is in the original mesh, which means I cannot match the point cache animation to the mesh now.
I saw on the RecalculateNormals page and it say's:
Imported Meshes sometimes don't share all vertices. For example, a
vertex at a UV seam is split into two vertices, so the
RecalculateNormals function creates normals that are not smooth at the
UV seam.
So, unity adds more vertices to the original mesh.
What can I do to fix that so my point cache match the mesh? there is no documentation how unity does that, nor is there a way to turn it off.
Note: I tried changing the import setting (and export setting on max) like:
Mesh compression -> Nothing
Optimize mesh -> Nothing
Keep Quads -> ON
Weld Vertices -> OFF
Smoothness Source -> None
And more...
Everything is set and tested separately & together. Nothing seem to lower the vertex count.
Vertex duplication is generally unavoidable.
Turning off split per-vertex normals in the fbx exporter settings in max is supposed to solve this problem, but it will remove all seams from your model.
Personally, I would work around this in maxscript by exporting the entire mesh as fbx at each $t instead of writing out the point cache.
I found this tool, the Oasis Mesh Editor, that can Split Vertices and Merge Vertices back together, https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/slug/166155
The Merge Verts tool also has a Max Tolerance setting so that only verts that are closer than this distance will be merged.
Hope this helps anyone looking =)
Perhaps the question is not that correct, the textures should be say a kind of channel? although I know they will be mixed in the shader finally.
I know the knowledge of the various textures is very important, but also a bit hard to understand completely.
From my understanding:
diffuse - the 'real' color of an object without light involved.
light - for static objects. render light effections into texture beforehand.
specular - the area where has direct reflection.
ao - to absorb indirect light for the different area of an object.
alpha - to 'shape' the object.
emissive - self illuminance.
normal - pixel normal vector to deal with the light ray.
bump - (dont' know the exact differences between normalmap).
height - stores Z range values, to generate terrain, modify vertex etc.
And the items below should be related to PBR material which I'm not familiar with:
translucency / cavity / metalness / roughness etc...
Please correct me if some misunderstandings there.
But whatever, my question is why we need to separate these textures apart for a material but not only render them together into the diffusemap directly for a static object?
It'll be appreciated if some examples (especially for PBR) , and thank you very much.
I can beforehand bake all things into the diffuse map and apply to my
mesh, why I need to apply so many different textures?
Re-usability:
Most games re-use textures to reduce the size of the game. You can't if you combine them together. For example, when you two similar objects but you want to randomize the looks of them(aging effect), you can make them share the-same color(albedo) map but use different ao map. This becomes important when there hundreds of objects, you can use different combination of texture maps on similar objects to create unique Objects. If you have combined this into one, it would be impossible to share it with other similar objects but you to slightly make to look different.
Customize-able:
If you separate them, you'll be able to change the amount of effect each texture will apply to the Object. For example, the slider on the metallic slot for the Standard shader. There are more of this sliders on other map slots but they only appear once you plug a texture into the slot. You can't do this when you combine the textures into one.
Shader:
The standard shader can't do this so you have to learn how to write shader since you can't use one image to get the effects you would with all those texture maps with the standard shader. A custom shader is required and you need a way to read the information about the maps in the combined shader.
This seems like a reasonable place to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping
A texture map is an image applied (mapped) to the surface of a shape or polygon. This may be a bitmap image or a procedural texture. They may be stored in common image file formats, referenced by 3d model formats or material definitions, and assembled into resource bundles.
I would add to this that the shape or a polygon don't have to belong to 3d objects as one may imagine it. If you render two triangles as a rectangle, you can run all sorts of computations and store it in a "live" texture.
Texture mapping is a method for defining high frequency detail, surface texture, or color information on a computer-generated graphic or 3D model. Its application to 3D graphics was pioneered by Edwin Catmull in 1974.
What this detail represents is either some agreed upon format to represent some property, (say "roughness" within some BRDF model) which you would encounter if you are using some kind of an engine.
Or whatever you decide that detail to be, if you are writing your own engine. You can decide to store whatever you want, however you want it.
You'll notice on the link that different "mapping" techniques are mentioned, each with their own page. This is the result of some person, or people who did some research and came up with a paper detailing the technique. Other people adopt it, and that's how they find their way into engines.
There is no rule saying these can't be combined.
I've built a working surface shader (call it "wonderland") that renders as invisible unless a companion "lookingGlass" shader intersects with it from the viewpoint of the camera. Simple stencil shader arrangement.
Easy peasy.
I can add shader settings to specify a plane, or even just a minimum worldspace Z value, and use clip() to only render pixels on one side of that plane... (in other words, I could use that to trim the content that's allowed by the Stencil.)
What I want to do is use the stencil on surfaces "through the looking glass", (to reveal geometry that's inside the looking glass) and to always render those surfaces when they're on "our" side of the looking glass (to always show them if they're on this side of the looking glass portal). eg., if z<0, render if the Stencil Ref value is satisfied. if z>=0, render regardless.
Now, in Unity I can attach two materials to the MeshRenderer component (one with a stencil shader, one with a "plane cutoff" shader) - that works fine. It's pretty awesome, actually, at least visually. But while I haven't benchmarked it yet, I instinctively believe it's going to massively impact framerate if there are a number of objects, fairly complicated geometry, etc., set up with this arrangement.
(I can also manage shader attachment in code, and only do this when I expect something to transition, but I'm really hoping to get a unified shader out of this to avoid unnecessary draw calls.)
As it turns out, what I was looking to do is impossible.
The two shaders I wish to combine are both surface shaders. While you can combine multiple surface shaders into a multipass shader, you cannot combine multiple surface shaders, with a Stencil, and with a clip() where the clip is applied to passes that the Stencil is not and vice-versa.
There are combinations that can achieve parts of this, or can achieve the entire goal with surface and vert (or other non-surf) shaders, but the combination of requirements stipulated by this question isn't supported as desired.
While this does not answer the question, the workaround in Unity is to create two materials that provide each piece of functionality. They can both exist on the item that needs both pieces, and code can otherwise manage whether one or the other or both is actively in use.
Similar solutions would be available in other packages.
As I understand it, the standard projection model places an imaginary grid in front of the camera, and for each triangle in the scene, determines which 3 pixels its 3 corners project onto. The color is determined for each of these points, and the fragment shader fills in the rest using interpolation.
My question is this: is it possible to gain control over this projection model? For example, create my own custom distorted uv-grid? Or even just supply my own algorithm:
xyPixelPos_for_Vector3( Vector3 v ) {...}
I'm working in Unity3D, so I think that limits me to cG or openGL.
I did once write a GLES2 shader, but I don't remember ever performing any kind of "ray hits quad" type test to resolve the pixel position of a particular 3D point in space.
I'm going to assume that you want to render 3d images based upon 3d primitives that are defined by vertices. This is not the only way to render images with OpenGL but it is the most common. The technique that you describe sounds much more like Ray-Tracing.
How OpenGL Typically Works:
I wouldn't say that OpenGL creates an imaginary grid. Instead, what it does is take the positions of each of your vertices, and converts them into a different space using linear algebra (Matrices).
If you want to start playing around with this, it would be best to do some reading on Matrices, to understand what the graphics card is doing.
You can easily start warping the positions of Vertices by making a vertex shader. However, there is some setup involved. See the Lighthouse tutorials (http://www.lighthouse3d.com/tutorials/glsl-tutorial/hello-world-in-glsl/) to get started with that! You will also want to read their tutorials on lighting (http://www.lighthouse3d.com/tutorials/glsl-tutorial/lighting/), to create a fully functioning vertex shader which includes a lighting model.
Thankfully, once the shader is set up, you can distort your entire scene to your hearts content. Just remember to do your distortions in the right 'space'. World coordinates are much different than eye coordinates!