I am new to stack overflow and new to 3D graphics programming. I have been given the task of creating an app that will read in data (currently I am reading from a delimited text file, but eventually will read from data arrays) and to graphically display the data in 3D. The data is x,y,z coordinates read from a 3D scanner which is scanning logs. I need to show the 3D representation of these logs on screen, from 4 different angles. I am reading the data into a 2-dimensional Point3D array and then using it to create 3D models in a HelixViewport3D. I use a nested for loop to check that the data points in the array are within certain x,Z bounds- and if they are I need to create a triangle out of that data. Once the entire array is passed through, I add the Model3DGroup to the children of my viewport:
topModel.Content = topGroup;
this.mainViewport.Children.Add(topModel);
It takes about 8 seconds for this to take place and zooming,panning, rotating are very very slow with all this data on the screen (around 500,000 triangles). Are there any ways to improve performance of WPF 3D graphics? I actually don't need to be able to zoom/pan/rotate in the finished app but it is helpful for debugging. The final app will simply be the same model shown statically 4 different ways, from different sides. However, I need to be able to read in the data and get the graphics to display in 1-5 seconds. Any help is greatly appreciated, and I hope my question is fairly clear!
EDIT: After doing some more digging into vertex buffering, this is what I need to do. I am using way too many points. If anyone can point me to some literature on doing vertex/index buffering in c#, it would be greatly appreciated!
I have solved this issue. Thanks for the input Capt Skyhawk! You saying that you doubted this was a WPF3D shortcoming helped me look in the right places. My problem was that the way I wrote this made every triangle it's own ModelVisual3D!! I re-wrote the code to contain only 3 GeometryModel3D (sp?) objects, and all the triangles are placed in a MeshGeometry3D and then the mesh is used to create a model. This made the models render in < 0.1 seconds. I now have a new issue- for some reason only about half of the triangles are showing up in the model in my viewports. I'm not sure why, though it may be that I have too many Point3D points or too many triangle indices in my mesh.
I doubt this is a shortcoming in WPF3D. It's more than likely the loading process. Parsing a text file with 500,000 triangles(even more points!) is where the bulk of the processing time is being spent.
If the loading of the text file is not being included in the 8 seconds, something is very wrong.
Are you using index buffers? If not, you're shooting yourself in the foot with that many vertices.
Related
Is there a way to change the clutter perspective for a given container or widget?
The clutter perspective controls how all the clutter actors on the screen are displayed when rotated, translated, scaled, etc.
What I would really like to do is to change the perspective's origin from the center of the screen to another coordinate.
I have messed with a few of the stage methods. However, I haven't had much luck understanding some of the results, and often I hit some stability issues.
I know there are transformation matrices that do all the logic under the hood, and there are documented ways to change the transform matrices. Honestly, I haven't researched much further and just though I would ask for guidance before spending a lot of time on it.
Which leads me to another question regarding the matrices and transformations. Can one of these matrices be used to skew an actor? Or deform it into a trapezoid, etc? And any idea how to get started on that, ie. what a skew matrix would look like?
Finally, does anyone know why the clip path was deprecated? It seems that would have worked for what I ultimately want to do: draw irregular shaped 2d objects on the screen If I can implement an answer to question 2, then I guess a clip box with a transformation can be used here.
1, I do not know if (or how) one might change the Clutter stage's focal point.
2 A skew or shear transformation matrix is easy enough to construct, and can be implemented in the GJS Clutter functions Clutter.Actor.set_transform(T) and Clutter.Actor.set_child_transform(T) where T is a Clutter.Matrix .
This does present another problem, however, for the current codebase; and this leads to another question. (I guess I should post it somewhere else). But, when a transform is set on a clutter actor (or its children), the rest of the actor's properties are ignored. This has the added effect that the Tweener library cannot be used for animation of these properties.
3 Finally, one can use Cairo to draw irregular shaped objects and paths on a Clutter actor, however, the reactive area for the actor (ie. mouse-enter and -leave events) will still be for the entire actor, not defined by the Cairo path.
I am working on a AR based solution in which I am rendering some 3D models using SceneKit and ARKit. I have also integrated CoreML to identify objects and render corresponding 3D objects in scene.
But right now I am just rendering it in the center of screen as soon I detect the object(Only for the list of objects that I have). Is it possible to get the position of the real world object so that I can show some overlay above the object?
That is if I have a water bottled scanned, I should able to get the position of the water bottle. It could be anywhere in the water bottle but shouldn't go outside of it. Is this possible using SceneKit?
All parts of what you ask are theoretically possible, but a) for several parts, there’s no integrated API to do things for you, and b) you’re probably signing yourself up for a more difficult problem than you think.
What you presumably have with your Core ML integration is an image classifier, as that’s what most of the easy to find ML models do. Image classification answers one question: “what is this a picture of?”
What you’re looking for involves at least two additional questions:
“Given that this image has been classified as containing (some specific object), where in the 2D image is that object?”
“Given the position of a detected object in the 2D video image, where is it in the 3D space tracked by ARKit?”
Question 1 is pretty reasonable. There are models that do both classification and detection (location/bounds within an image) in the ML community. Probably the best known one is YOLO — here’s a blog post about using it with Core ML.
Question 2 is the “research team and five years” part. You’ll notice in the YOLO papers that it gives you only coarse bounding boxes for detected objects — that is, it’s working in 2D image space, not doing 3D scene reconstruction.
To really know the shape, or even the 3D bounding box of an object means integrating object detection with scene reconstruction. For example, if an object has some height in the 2D image, are you looking at a 3D object that’s tall with a small footprint, or one that’s long and low, receding into the distance? Such integration would require taking apart the inner workings of ARKit, which nobody outside Apple can do, or recreating an ARKit-alike from scratch.
There might be some assumptions you can make to get very rough estimates of 3D shape from a 2D bounding box, though. For example, if you do AR hit tests on the lower corners of a box and find that they’re on a horizontal plane, you can guess that the 2D height of the box is proportional to the 3D height of the object, and that its footprint on the plane is proportional to the box’s width. You’d have to do some research and testing to see if assumptions like that hold up, especially in whatever use cases your app covers.
I am coding a modern OpenGL application to visualize 3d atomic models (molecules, periodic systems ...) for chemistry and condense matter physics.
I started to work on this few years ago, the first version of my program was in old OpenGL now I am updating it to modern OpenGL.
I come with a question regarding the quality of the rendering of the OpenGL window. In the following examples I draw 3D cylinders and 3D spheres using instanced drawing, in this model to render the bonds I only draw one cylinder, then I translate/scale/rotate it properly in the vertex shader
to render all bonds, same goes for the sphere to render the atoms.
As you can see it works just fine, and the efficiency of the method is amazing and I can render models with hundreds of thousand of atoms smoothly.
However I noticed something weird, that somehow the quality of the rendering seems to be dependent on the number of vertices (objects, atoms and bonds) in the scene, obviously the number of triangles is the most important parameter but not the only one ... since the quality decrease when a lot of vertices are rendered ... please see the attached snapshots:
To render the spheres in the scene I am using 50x50 vertices, and 2x50 for the cylinders (GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP in both cases)
1) In this test model I load: 96 atoms, 512 half bonds, : ~ 291200 vertices:
2) I zoom in to focus on one selected atom and it surrounding, at this scale the result is impeccable:
3) I reset the view and use the builder in my program to increase the number of boxes
(I am simply doing replicas in the 3 direction of space) here I choose to do 20x20x20 replicas,
see the result bellow, the original box is highlighted.
In that scene there are 768000 atoms, 4096000 half-bonds, and thus: 291200x20x20x20 = 2329600000 vertices
quite a lot, yet it works, but something weird appears ...
4) I zoom in again on that particular area of the model I picked before and there is a decrease in quality in particular
in the areas where 3D objects (spheres/cylinders) superimpose/overlap ...
Can somebody explain to me what I see ?
Note 1: In the same window I can decrease the number of replicas back to the original box, zoom again
and see that the result is back to impeccable.
Note 2: the older version of my program still works fine (old OpenGL, using display list with glutsphere and glutcylinders),
I can do the same things, the rendering will take much much longer, but at the end of the process when I zoom in on the 20x20x20
boxes model, the results remains perfect, like for the single box model, and obviously I use same graphic card, driver and else.
Can somebody explain to me what I see ?
You're seeing the limited precision of the depth buffer. There are only so many bits you can work with and in a perspective projection a lonlinear scaling from Z distance to depth buffer value is applied.
The best course of action is to limit the near/depth range of the perspective projection matrix to what's going to be actually visible on screen, to make better use of the depth buffer. Also it's possible to linearize the depth buffer (but that comes with a performance hit). Also you could try to cleanly intersect the geometry where sticks and spheres meet, i.e. constrain the sphere's vertices to the cylinder surface where the sticks and similarly constrain the sticks' end vertices to the sphere where they meet. That way you avoid overlap and hence these artifacts.
So, to start off, I'm not very good at computer graphics. I'm trying to implement a GUI toolkit where one of the features is being able to apply 3D transformations to 2D "layers". (a layer only has one Z coordinate, as pre-transform, it's a two dimensional axis aligned rectangle)
Now, this is pretty straightforward, until you come to 3D transformations that would push the layer back, requiring splitting the layer into several polygons in order to render it correctly, as illustrated here. And because we can have transparency, layers may not get completely occluded, while still requiring getting split.
So here is an illustration depicting the issue and the desired outcome. In this scenario, the blue layer (call it B) is on top of the red layer (R), while having the same Z position (but B was added after R). In this scenario, if we rotate B, its top two points will get a Z index lower than 0 while the bottom points will get an index higher than 0 (with the anchor point being the only point/line left as 0).
Can somebody suggest a good way of doing this on the CPU? I've struggled to find a suitable algorithm implementation (in C++ or C) that would be appropriate to this scenario.
Edit: To clarify myself, at this stage in the pipeline, there is no rendering yet. We just need to produce a set of polygons for each layer that would then represent the layer's transformed and occluded geometry. Then, if required, rendering (either software or hardware) is done if required, which is not always the case (for example, when doing hit testing).
Edit 2: I looked at binary space partitioning as an option of achieving this but I have only been able to find one implementation (in GL2PS), which I'm not sure how to use. I do have a vague understanding of how BSPs work, but I'm not sure how they can be used for occlusion culling.
Edit 3: I'm not trying to do colour and transparency blending at this stage. Just pure geometry. Transparency can be handled by the renderer, and overdraw is okay. In this case, the blue polygon can just be drawn under the red one, but with more complicated cases, depth sorting or even splitting up the polygons may be required (example of a scary case like that below). Although the viewport is fixed, because all layers can be transformed in 3D, creating a shape shown below is possible.
So what I'm really looking for is an algorithm that would geometrically split layer B into two blue shapes, one of which would be drawn "above" and one of which would be drawn below R. The part "below" would get overdraw, yes, but it's not a major issue. So B just need to be split into two polygons so it would appear to cut through R when those polygons are drawn in order. No need to worry about blending.
Edit 4: For the purpose of this, we cannot render anything at all. This all has to be done purely geometrically (producing 2D polygons). This is what I was originally getting at.
Edit 5: I should note that the overall number of quads per subscene is around 30 (average). Definitely won't go above 100. Unless the layers are 3D transformed (which is where this problem arises), they are just radix sorted by Z positions before being drawn. Layers with the same Z position are drawn in order in which they were added (first in, first out).
Sorry if I didn't make it clear in the original question.
If you "aren't good with computer graphics", Doing it on CPU (software rendering) will be extremely difficult for you, if polygons can be transparent.
The easiest way to do it is to use GPU rendering (OpenGL/Direct3D) with Depth Peeling technique.
Cpu solutions:
Soltuion #1 (extremely difficult):
(I forgot the name of this algorithm).
You need to split polygon B into two, - for example, using polygon A as clip plane, then render result using painter's algorithm.
To do that you'll need to change your rendering routines so they'll no longer use quads, but textured polygons, plus you'll have to write/debug clipping routines that'll split triangles present in scene in such way that they'll no longer break paitner's algorithm.
Big Problem: If you have many polygons, this solution can potentially split scene into infinite number of triangles. Also, writing texture rendering code yourself isn't much fun, so it is advised to use OpenGL/Direct3D.
This can be extremely difficult to get right. I think this method was discussed in "Computer Graphics Using OpenGL 2nd edition" by "Francis S. Hill" - somewhere in one of their excercises.
Also check wikipedia article on Hidden Surface Removal.
Solution #2 (simpler):
You need to implement multi-layered z-buffer that stores up to N transparent pixels and their depth.
Solution #3 (computationally expensive):
Just use ray-tracing. You'll get perfect rendering result (no limitations of depth peeling and cpu solution #2), but it'll be computationally expensive, so you'll need to optimize rendering routines a lot.
Bottom line:
If you're performing software rendering, use Solution #2 or #3. If you're rendering on hardware, use technique similar to depth-peeling, or implement raytracing on hardware.
--edit-1--
required knowledge for implementing #1 and #2 is "line-plane intersection". If you understand how to split line (in 3d space) into two using a plane, you can implement raytracing or clipping easily.
Required knowledge for #2 is "textured 3d triangle rendering" (algorithm). It is a fairly complex topic.
In order to implement GPU solution, you need to be able to find few OpenGL tutorials that deal with shaders.
--edit-2--
Transparency is relevant, because in order to get transparency right, you need to draw polygons from back to front (from farthest to closest) using painter's algorithms. Sorting polygons properly is impossible in certain situation, so they must be split, or you should use one of the listed techniques, otherwise in certain situations there will be artifacts/incorrectly rendered images.
If there's no transparency, you can implement standard zbuffer or draw using hardware OpenGL, which is a very trivial task.
--edit-3--
I should note that the overall number of quads per subscene is around 30 (average). Definitely won't go above 100.
If you will split polygons, it can easily go way above 100.
It might be possible to position polygons in such way that each polygon will split all others polygon.
Now, 2^29 is 536870912, however, it is not possible to split one surface with a plane in such way that during each split number of polygons would double. If one polygon is split 29 timse, you'll get 30 polygons in the best-case scenario, and probably several thousands in the worst case if splitting planes aren't parallel.
Here's rough algorithm outline that should work:
Prepare list of all triangles in scene.
Remove back-facing triangles.
Find all triangles that intersect each other in 3d space, and split them using line of intersection.
compute screen-space coordinates for all vertices of all triangles.
Sort by depth for painter's algorithm.
Prepare extra list for new primitives.
Find triangles that overlap in 2D (post projection) screen space.
For all overlapping triangles check their rendering order. Basically a triangle that is going to be rendered "below" another triangles should have no part that is above another triangle.
8.1. To do that, use camera origin point and triangle edges to split original triangles into several sub-regions, then check if regions conform to established sort order (prepared for painter's algorithm). Regions are created by splitting existing pair of triangles using 6 clip planes created by camera origin points and triangle edges.
8.2. If all regions conform to rendering order, leave triangles be. If they don't, remove triangles from list, and add them to the "new primitives" list.
IF there are any primitives in new primitives list, merge the list with triangle list, and go to #5.
By looking at that algorithm, you can easily understand why everybody uses Z-buffer nowadays.
Come to think about it, that's a good training exercise for universities that specialize in CG. The kind of exercise that might make your students hate you.
I am going to come out say give the simpler solution, which may not fit your problem. Why not just change your artwork to prevent this problem from occuring.
In problem 1, just divide the polys in Maya or whatever beforehand. For the 3 lines problem, again, divide your polys at the intersections to prevent fighting. Pre-computed solutions will always run faster than on the fly ones - especially on limited hardware. From profesional experience, I can say that it also does scale, well it scales ok. It just requires some tweaking from the art side and technical reviews to make sure nothing is created "ilegally." You may end up getting more polys doing it this way than rendering on the fly, but at least you won't have to do a ton of math on CPUs that may not be up to the task.
If you do not have control over the artwork pipeline, this won't work as writing some sort of a converter would take longer than getting a BSP sub-division routine up and running. Still, KISS is often the best solution.
I'm trying to write an CAD-like application in WPF(.NET 4.0) that needs to be able to display a lot of 2D points/lines. It will be used to display CAD-plans of entire cities with zoom, pan, rotate and point snapping on mouseover.
Right now I purely use WPF. I read the objects from the CAD file draw them into a StreamGeometry, use it as stroke of a new Path and add it to a Canvas, with several transforms.
My problem is that this solution doesn't scale well enough. It works fine with small CAD-files, but when I want to display like half a city(with houses and land boundaries) it is very very delayed.
I also tried to convert my CAD-file to an image, but
- a resolution a 32000x32000 is sometimes not enough
- when zooming out the lines are too thin.
In the end I need to be able to place this on a Canvas(2D/3D) as background.
What are my best options here?
Thanks,
Niklas
wpf is not good for a large 3d models. im afraid it is too slow. Your best bet is direct 3d or openGL
However, even with the speed of direct3d,openGL you will still need to work out how to cull as many polygons/vertices as possible before the rendering of the scene if you are trying to show an entire city.
there is a large amount of information on this (generally under game development)
there are a few techniques including frustrum culling, near and far plane culling.
also, since you probably have a static scene you may be able to use binary spacial partitioning.
As I understand the subject is 2D CAD system within WPF.
Great! I use it...
OpenGL and DirectX are in infinite loop OnDraw always. The CPU works all the time.
WPF/Silverlight 2D is smart model.
Yes, total amount of elements (for example, primitives inherited from Shape) must be not so much. But how many?
I tested own app (Silverlight). WPF will be a bit faster I hope...
Here my 2D CAD results. Performance is still great. Each beam consists of multiple primitives.
Use a VirtualCanvas like this one from Chris Lovett.