is it possible create a cube with rounded corners in WPF? I found many examples that easily create cubes with hard edges but none with rounded ones. One possible solution would be a pre-rendered object, but that's not easy and controls to be put on the sides must be transformed separately.
You'll need to use a 3D modelling package to create the object and then export it to XAML.
There are plenty of free packages out there, or expensive ones with free trials, that should have this functionality.
Related
I've got an array of points (X,Y) which constitute a convex hull (a simple, irregularly shaped contour). Rather than rendering a polygon with straight edges, I want to render them with an approximate "smoothly curved" contour that passes through all of these points.
In WinForms/GDI+, this could be accomplished with the Graphics.DrawClosedCurve or Graphics.FillClosedCurve methods. There does not appear to be an equivalent in WPF.
I've looked into drawing using things like Path and BezierSegment, but I'm not sure if (and how) these can be used to generate a continuous closed curve, given a set of points. It appears that to do this, I'd perhaps have to generate a set of control points based on my contour as an intermediate step?
I have tried using the GDI+ methods to render onto a System.Drawing.Bitmap and then displaying that in the WPF application. This works, but the performance (particularly the conversion from System.Drawing.Bitmap to BitmapSource) is poor and not sufficient for the application. This is why I'm looking for a pure WPF solution.
Has anyone been able to draw a closed curve based off a set of points in WPF?
Unfortunately, there is no single-method equivalent to DrawClosedCurve in WPF, even though it's been requested. So you are left with at least two options:
Host a native window within your WPF window and perform all your drawing on it.
Implement your own cardinal spline drawing. You are on the right track with Bezier segments. However, there are existing implementations of it you can look at out there.
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 have created a box in X3D but i want to curve the top right and left corners of the box.
Any ideas on how? At the moment i have the code for the box only.
I cannot find much on the net about simple shape manipulation.
Thanks
You can't do it manually, directly in X3D.
You have to use a software like Blender or 3DS Max to create non-primitive shapes (more complex shapes than cubes, spheres, cylinders and so on.) There you have all kinds of functions that would change your object and then you can export it in several formats, including X3D.
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.
Is there any disadvantage of using ModelVisual3D over Model3DGroup. How much can the resource/performance impact possibly be?
ModelVisual3D gives me much more than Model3DGroup does but AFAIK everything that can be done with Model3DGroup can alos be done with ModelVisual3D.
So why not just always use ModelVisual3D?
The answer is Yes. Having many ModelVisual3ds will be orders of magnitude slower than using a Model3DGroup
My understanding is that ModelVisual3D is more akin to a UIElement, i.e. more of a heavy weight object. MSDN says about ModelVisual3d:
"Provides services and properties that are common to all visual objects, including hit-testing, coordinate transformation, and bounding-box calculations."
So if you wanted to 100 clickable 3d objects in your scene you would need 100 ModelVisual3d elements.
Model3DGroup (along with GeometryModel3D) on the other hand is a Model3D - the building blocks of 3d models. A single Model3D can appear as the content for several ModelVisual3Ds. Model3Ds are more lightweight than ModelVisual3D.
If you wanted to construct 3d models from building blocks (like Lego), you could define several GeometryModel3Ds, then combine them together using a Model3dGroup.
Yes, the class naming is horribly confusing, and I don't think the Daniel Lehenbauer sheds any light on the subject for the average human.