I looked for a way to create shadows in 3D javaFX programs, and since I found none, I decided to make my own. It accomplishes this by taking the shape of the 3D model, and using a projection matrix to flatten it onto a surface (I'm using the Affine class to make this matrix. There are a couple issues with it, but the most pressing is the fact that Affine doesn't seem to update the normal vectors once the projection is complete, leaving a weird lighting issue. Similarly, it doesn't seem to update the information used by PerspectiveCamera when calculating distortions.
Related
I'm working in the revitalization of an old 3d game (built using Direct3D) and I'm struggling with the game objects animations.
The game has its objects animations stored in binary files that contains transformation matrices for each bone of its meshes at each frame of the animation (in the form of an array of D3DMATRIX).
I've tried using the D3DXMatrixDecompose function to get the position, rotation and scale but it seems that something is wrong with the animation. Some animations almost matches the originals, but there are some strange rotations in the middle of the animations (the scale vector goes from negative to positive values and that causes the whole bone to rotate in an strange way - it is definitely wrong) and for other animations the whole thing is wrong.
I read somewhere that the function D3DXMatrixDecompose assumes the matrix was composed as a SRT matrix and apparently the order in which each component was combined in the matrix matters. So, as the animations are clearly wrong I'm assuming maybe the matrices were not composed in the SRT order and the output of D3DXMatrixDecompose is wrong.
I didn't find much material to read about this without going very deep on math. As I don't have a strong background on math, hopefully someone can point me in the right direction.
So, how can I decompose position, rotation and scale of an unknown transformation matrix? I'm not asking for a unique algorithm that can do that, I'm asking what I can do in this scenario to find the original (or equivalents) values for the position, rotation and scale of each matrix.
Thanks in advance!
I'm currently rendering a 3D model (Wavefront .obj format) in my Qt program. Right now, I'm rendering the model using Scene3D in QML, and I'm able to get it to display in the viewing area. What I would like to do is have a user click on the model and generate a 2D cross section of the slice that I would like to plot on a different window. I'm quite new to 3D rendering, and a lot of Qt documentation isn't very descriptive. I've been reading Qt documentation, experimenting, and searching online with no luck. How can I create 2D slices of a 3D object Model in Qt 3D, preferably in QML? What Qt libraries or classes can I use to achieve this?
Unfortunately, the fact that models are stored as a set of surfaces makes this hard. QT probably doesn't have a built in method for this.
Consider, for example, that a model made of faces might be missing a face. What now? can you interpolate across that gap consistently from different angles? What about the fact that a cross-section probably won't contain any vertices?
But, of course, it can be solved. First, just don't allow un-closed surfaces (meshes with holes). Second, for finding the vertices of your cross-section, perform an intersection between every edge in your model and the plane you're using, and if there's an intersection, there's a point there. Third, to find the edges, look at the list of vertices, and any two that are from an edge on the same polygon in the mesh should be connected by an edge in the cross section. To find which direction the edge should go, project the normal of the polygon onto the plane your using. For filling, I don't really know what to do. I guess that's whatever you want it to be.
The Wikipedia page for L-Systems describes many of them, including a couple rules that converge toward the Sierpinski triangle. That particular fractal also has a 3D version, which basically uses pyramids instead of triangles. Is there a way to reach this one with an L-system? That same wikipedia page mentions the existence of 3D L-systems, but doesn't explain how they work or give any example as to what their rules would look like.
So first, how do 3D L-systems differ from their 2D counterpart (if there are major differences), and second, can they be used to create this Sierpinski Pyramids?
I'm trying to create it in Processing, as I managed to draw the 2D version in this software using an L-system before. An example of making a 3D L-system work would be appreciated, but not necessary
A 2D L system in instructions for creating recursive 2D trees with branches that contain number of sub-branches, angle, and length. A 3D version expends the branches to have roll, pitch and yaw. Its easiest to create one with turtle graphics. (If you just use a orthographic projection, you can see the tree, which is of course flattened again to 2D, but looks more complex and less symmetrical than a 2D tree)
Otherwise the system is the same.
I don't know the instruction sequence specifically for creating a Seipinsky pyramid. Presumably you stat at the apex pointing down, then do a pitch of 45*,
and four Rolls with 4 As between them.
I know that if I rotate an object, which extends javafx.scene.shape.Shape, I can transform it into 3D space, even though it was primarily designed to be in 2D (at least as far as I know).
Let's say I have a 3D scene (perspective camera and depth buffer are used), where various MeshViews occur. Some are used for areas, others for lines. In both cases those shapes must be triangulated in order to draw them with a TriangleMesh, which is often nontrivial.
Now when I change the drawing of these lines to use the Polyline class, the performance collapse is horrible and there a strange artefacts. I thought I could benefit from the fact, that a polyline has less vertices and the developer doesn't have to triangulate programmatically.
Is it discouraged to use shapes extending javafx.scene.shape.Shape within 3D space? How're they drawn internally?
If the question is "should I use 2D Shape objects in 3D space?" in JavaFX then the answer is No because you will get all terrible performance that you are seeing. However it sounds like you are trying to make up for JavaFX's lack of a 3D PolyLine object using 2D objects and rotating them in 3D space. If that is true, instead use the free open-source F(X)yz library:
http://birdasaur.github.io/FXyz/
For example the PolyLine3D class which allows you to simply specify a list of Point3Ds and it will connect them for you:
/src/org/fxyz/shapes/composites/PolyLine3D.java
and you can see example code on how to use it in the test directory:
/src/org/fxyz/tests/PolyLine3DTest.java
I am quite new to this, and iv'e heard that i need to get my inversed projection matrix and so on to create a ray from a 2D point to a 3D world point, however since im using OpenglES and there are not as many methods as there would be regulary to help me with this. (And i simply don't know how to do it) im using a trigenomeric formula for this insted.
For each time i iterate one step down the negative Z-axis i multiply the Y-position on the screen (-1 to 1) with
(-z / (cot(myAngle / 2))
And the X position likewise but with a koefficent equally to the aspect ratio.
myAngle is the frustum perspective angle.
This works really good for me and i get very accurate values, so what i wonder is: Why should i use the inverse of the projection matrix and multiply it with some stuff instead of using this?
Most of the time you have a matrix lying around for your OpenGl camera. Using an inverse matrix is simple when you already have a camera matrix on hand. It is also (oh so very slightly at computer speeds) faster to do a matrix multiply. And in cases where you are doing a bajillion of these calculations per frame, it can matter.
Here is some good info on getting started on a camera class if you are interested:
Camera Class
And some matrix resources
Depending on what you are working on, I wouldn't worry too much about the 'best way to do it.' You just want to make sure you understand what your code is doing then keep improving it.