My task is to produce the plot of a 2-dimensional function in real time using nothing but linear algebra and color (imagine having to compute an image buffer in plain C++ from a function definition, for example f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2). The output should be something like this 3d plot.
So far I have tried 3 approaches:
1: Ray tracing:
Divide the (x,y) plane into triangles, find the z-values of each vertex, thus divide the plot into triangles. Intersect each ray with the triangles.
2: Sphere tracing:
a method for rendering implicit surfaces described here.
3: Rasterization:
The inverse of (1). Split the plot into triangles, project them onto the camera plane, loop over the pixels of the canvas and for each one choose the "closest" projected pixel.
All of these are way to slow. Part of my assignment is moving around the camera, so the plot has to be re-rendered in each frame. Please point me towards another source of information/another algorithm/any kind of help. Thank you.
EDIT
As pointed out, here is the pseudocode for my very basic rasterizer. I am aware that this code might not be flawless, but it should resemble the general idea. However, when splitting my plot into 200 triangles (which I do not expect to be enough) it already runs very slowly, even without rendering anything. I am not even using a depth buffer for visibility. I just wanted to test the speed by setting up a frame buffer as follows:
NOTE: In the JavaScript framework I am using, _ denotes array indexing and a..b composes a list from a to b.
/*
* Raster setup.
* The raster is a pxH x pxW array.
* Raster coordinates might be negative or larger than the array dimensions.
* When rendering (i.e. filling the array) positions outside the visible raster will not be filled (i.e. colored).
*/
pxW := Width of the screen in pixels.
pxH := Height of the screen in pixels.
T := Transformation matrix of homogeneous world points to raster space.
// Buffer setup.
colBuffer = apply(1..pxW, apply(1..pxH, 0)); // pxH x pxW array of black pixels.
// Positive/0 if the point is on the right side of the line (V1,V2)/exactly on the line.
// p2D := point to test.
// V1, V2 := two vertices of the triangle.
edgeFunction(p2D, V1, V2) := (
det([p2D-V1, V2-V1]);
);
fillBuffer(V0, V1, V2) := (
// Dehomogenize.
hV0 = V0/(V0_3);
hV1 = V1/(V1_3);
hV2 = V2/(V2_3);
// Find boundaries of the triangle in raster space.
xMin = min(hV0.x, hV1.x, hV2.x);
xMax = max(hV0.x, hV1.x, hV2.x);
yMin = min(hV0.y, hV1.y, hV2.y);
yMax = max(hV0.y, hV1.y, hV2.y);
xMin = floor(if(xMin >= 0, xMin, 0));
xMax = ceil(if(xMax < pxW, xMax, pxW));
yMin = floor(if(yMin >= 0, yMin, 0));
yMax = ceil(if(yMax < pxH, yMax, pxH));
// Check for all points "close to" the triangle in raster space whether they lie inside it.
forall(xMin..xMax, x, forall(yMin..yMax, y, (
p2D = (x,y);
i = edgeFunction(p2D, hV0.xy, hV1.xy) * edgeFunction(p2D, hV1.xy, hV2.xy) * edgeFunction(p2D, hV2.xy, hV0.xy);
if (i > 0, colBuffer_y_x = 1); // Fill all points inside the triangle with some placeholder.
)));
);
mapTrianglesToScreen() := (
tvRaster = homogVerts * T; // Triangle vertices in raster space.
forall(1..(length(tvRaster)/3), i, (
actualI = i / 3 + 1;
fillBuffer(tvRaster_actualI, tvRaster_(actualI + 1), tvRaster_(actualI + 2));
));
);
// After all this, render the colBuffer.
What is wrong about this approach? Why is it so slow?
Thank you.
I would go with #3 it is really not that complex so you should obtain > 20 fps on standard machine with pure SW rasterizer (without any libs) if coded properly. My bet is you are using some slow API like PutPixel or SetPixel or doing some crazy thing. Without seeing code or better description of how you do it is hard to elaborate. All the info you need to do this is in here:
Algorithm to fill triangle
HSV histogram
Understanding 4x4 homogenous transform matrices
Do look also in the sub-links in each ...
Related
This is a little tricky to explain, so bare with me. I'm attempting to design a 2D projection matrix that takes 2D pixel coordinates along with a custom world-space depth value, and converts to clip-space.
The idea is that it would allow drawing elements based on screen coordinates, but at specific depths, so that these elements would interact on the depth buffer with normal 3D elements. However, I want x and y coordinates to remain the same scale at every depth. I only want depth to influence the depth buffer, and not coordinates or scale.
After the vertex shader, the GPU sets depth_buffer=z/w. However, it also scales x/w and y/w, which creates the depth scaling I want to avoid. This means I must make sure my final clip-space w coordinate ends up being 1.0, to avoid those things. I think I could also adopt to scale x and y by w, to cancel out the divide, but I would rather do the former, if possible.
This is the process that my 3D projection matrix uses to convert depth into clip space (d = depth, n = near distance, f = far distance)
z = f/(f-n) * d + f/(f-n) * -n;
w = d;
This is how I would like to setup my 2D projection matrix. Compared to the 3D version, it would divide both attributes by the input depth. This would simulate having z/w encoded into just the z value.
z = ( f/(f-n) * d + f/(f-n) * -n ) / d;
w = d / d;
I think this turns into something like..
r = f/(f-n); // for less crazy math
z = r + ( r * -n ) / d;
w = 1.0;
However, I can't seem to wrap my math around the values that I would need to plug into my matrix to get this result. It looks like I would need to set my matrix up to perform a division by depth. Is that even possible? Can anyone help me figure out the values I need to plug into my matrix at m[2][2] and m[3][2] (m._33 and m._43) to make something like this happen?
Note my 3D projection matrix uses the following properties to generate the final z value:
m._33 = f / (f-n); // depth scale
m._43 = -(f / (f-n)) * n; // depth offset
Edit: After thinking about this a little more, I realized that the rate of change of the depth buffer is not linear, and I'm pretty sure a matrix can only perform linear change when its input is linear. If that is the case, then what I'm trying to do wouldn't be possible. However, I'm still open to any ideas that are in the same ball park, if anyone has one. I know that I can get what I want by simply doing pos.z /= pos.w; pos.w = 1; in the vertex shader, but I was really hoping to make it all happen in the projection matrix, if possible.
In case anyone is attempting to do this, it cannot be done. Without black magic, there is apparently no way to divide values with a matrix, unless of course the diviser is a constant or etc, where you can swap out a scaler with 1/x. I resorted to performing the operation in the shader in the end.
I have a graph like this:
And I want to be able to convert the position of P1 aka the ball you can drag around to scale with different starting and ending points on my screen.
I esentially want to make it so that the curve dot is around the same position no matter where the starting and ending positions are for the curve
So if I had a different points on my screen it would look the same as the graph
This is what I tried to do but it didn't work
function bezier.scale(startingPosition : Vector2, endingPosition : Vector2)
local screenSize = workspace.CurrentCamera.ViewportSize
local lengthX = (endingPosition.X - startingPosition.X)
local lengthY = (endingPosition.Y - startingPosition.Y)
local screenRelativeX = (screenSize.X - startingPosition.X) + lengthX
local screenRelativeY = (screenSize.Y - startingPosition.Y) + lengthY
local scaleX = (screenRelativeX / graphBackground.Size.X.Offset)
local scaleY = (screenRelativeY / graphBackground.Size.Y.Offset)
local x = (bezierPoint.Position.X.Offset * scaleX)
local y = (bezierPoint.Position.Y.Offset * scaleY)
return Vector2.new(x, y)
end
so your input is 4 2D points ... first 2 points p0,p1 are constant refer to your BEZIER start and end points and the next 2 q0,q1 are start and end point for your animation. So you want affine transform mapping between the two pairs. For that you need rotation and scale and offset...
Scale
is Easy its just ratio between line sizes so:
scale = |q1-q0| / |p1-p0|
Rotation
you can exploit dot product:
ang = acos( dot(p1-p0,q1-q0)/(|p1-p0|*|q1-q0|) )
the sign can be determined by 3D cross product (using z=0) for example:
if (cross(p1-p0,q1-q0).z >=0 ) ang=-ang;
however note that >=0 or <=0 depends on yoru coordinate system and rotation formula so it might be reversed in your case.
offset
simply apply the #1,#2 on p0 lets call the result P0 then the offset is easy:
offset = p0-P0
Putting all toghether
so transforming point p=(x,y) will be:
// #1 apply scale
x' = x*scale
y' = y*scale
// #2 apply rotation
x = x'*cos(ang) + y'*sin(ang)
y =-x'*sin(ang) + y'*cos(ang)
// #3 apply offset
x = x + offset.x
y = y + offset.y
Do not forget to use temp variables x',y' for the rotation! You might also construct 3x3 transform matrix for this instead.
For more info about transform matrices and vector math (dot and cross product included) see:
Understanding 4x4 homogenous transform matrices
I'd like to implement image morphing, for which I need to be able to deform the image with given set of points and their destination positions (where they will be "dragged"). I am looking for a simple and easy solution that gets the job done, it doesn't have to look great or be extremely fast.
This is an example what I need:
Let's say I have an image and a set of only one deforming point [0.5,0.5] which will have its destination at [0.6,0.5] (or we can say its movement vector is [0.1,0.0]). This means I want to move the very center pixel of the image by 0.1 to the right. Neighboring pixels in some given radius r need to of course be "dragged along" a little with this pixel.
My idea was to do it like this:
I'll make a function mapping the source image positions to destination positions depending on the deformation point set provided.
I will then have to find the inverse function of this function, because I have to perform the transformation by going through destination pixels and seeing "where the point had to come from to come to this position".
My function from step 1 looked like this:
p2 = p1 + ( 1 / ( (distance(p1,p0) / r)^2 + 1 ) ) * s
where
p0 ([x,y] vector) is the deformation point position.
p1 ([x,y] vector) is any given point in the source image.
p2 ([x,y] vector) is the position, to where p1 will be moved.
s ([x,y] vector) is movement vector of deformation point and says in which direction and how far p0 will be dragged.
r (scalar) is the radius, just some number.
I have problem with step number 2. The calculation of the inverse function seems a little too complex to me and so I wonder:
If there is an easy solution for finding the inverse function, or
if there is a better function for which finding the inverse function is simple, or
if there is an entirely different way of doing all this that is simple?
Here's the solution in Python - I did what Yves Daoust recommended and simply tried to use the forward function as the inverse function (switching the source and destination). I also altered the function slightly, changing exponents and other values produces different results. Here's the code:
from PIL import Image
import math
def vector_length(vector):
return math.sqrt(vector[0] ** 2 + vector[1] ** 2)
def points_distance(point1, point2):
return vector_length((point1[0] - point2[0],point1[1] - point2[1]))
def clamp(value, minimum, maximum):
return max(min(value,maximum),minimum)
## Warps an image accoording to given points and shift vectors.
#
# #param image input image
# #param points list of (x, y, dx, dy) tuples
# #return warped image
def warp(image, points):
result = img = Image.new("RGB",image.size,"black")
image_pixels = image.load()
result_pixels = result.load()
for y in range(image.size[1]):
for x in range(image.size[0]):
offset = [0,0]
for point in points:
point_position = (point[0] + point[2],point[1] + point[3])
shift_vector = (point[2],point[3])
helper = 1.0 / (3 * (points_distance((x,y),point_position) / vector_length(shift_vector)) ** 4 + 1)
offset[0] -= helper * shift_vector[0]
offset[1] -= helper * shift_vector[1]
coords = (clamp(x + int(offset[0]),0,image.size[0] - 1),clamp(y + int(offset[1]),0,image.size[1] - 1))
result_pixels[x,y] = image_pixels[coords[0],coords[1]]
return result
image = Image.open("test.png")
image = warp(image,[(210,296,100,0), (101,97,-30,-10), (77,473,50,-100)])
image.save("output.png","PNG")
You don't need to construct the direct function and invert it. Directly compute the inverse function, by swapping the roles of the source and destination points.
You need some form of bivariate interpolation, have a look at radial basis function interpolation. It requires to solve a linear system of equations.
Inverse distance weighting (similar to your proposal) is the easiest to implement but I am afraid it will give disappointing results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_interpolation#Irregular_grid_.28scattered_data.29
Although the context of this question is about making a 2d/3d game, the problem i have boils down to some math.
Although its a 2.5D world, lets pretend its just 2d for this question.
// xa: x-accent, the x coordinate of the projection
// mapP: a coordinate on a map which need to be projected
// _Dist_ values are constants for the projection, choosing them correctly will result in i.e. an isometric projection
xa = mapP.x * xDistX + mapP.y * xDistY;
ya = mapP.x * yDistX + mapP.y * yDistY;
xDistX and yDistX determine the angle of the x-axis, and xDistY and yDistY determine the angle of the y-axis on the projection (and also the size of the grid, but lets assume this is 1-pixel for simplicity).
x-axis-angle = atan(yDistX/xDistX)
y-axis-angle = atan(yDistY/yDistY)
a "normal" coordinate system like this
--------------- x
|
|
|
|
|
y
has values like this:
xDistX = 1;
yDistX = 0;
xDistY = 0;
YDistY = 1;
So every step in x direction will result on the projection to 1 pixel to the right end 0 pixels down. Every step in the y direction of the projection will result in 0 steps to the right and 1 pixel down.
When choosing the correct xDistX, yDistX, xDistY, yDistY, you can project any trimetric or dimetric system (which is why i chose this).
So far so good, when this is drawn everything turns out okay. If "my system" and mindset are clear, lets move on to perspective.
I wanted to add some perspective to this grid so i added some extra's like this:
camera = new MapPoint(60, 60);
dx = mapP.x - camera.x; // delta x
dy = mapP.y - camera.y; // delta y
dist = Math.sqrt(dx * dx + dy * dy); // dist is the distance to the camera, Pythagoras etc.. all objects must be in front of the camera
fac = 1 - dist / 100; // this formula determines the amount of perspective
xa = fac * (mapP.x * xDistX + mapP.y * xDistY) ;
ya = fac * (mapP.x * yDistX + mapP.y * yDistY );
Now the real hard part... what if you got a (xa,ya) point on the projection and want to calculate the original point (x,y).
For the first case (without perspective) i did find the inverse function, but how can this be done for the formula with the perspective. May math skills are not quite up to the challenge to solve this.
( I vaguely remember from a long time ago mathematica could create inverse function for some special cases... could it solve this problem? Could someone maybe try?)
The function you've defined doesn't have an inverse. Just as an example, as user207422 already pointed out anything that's 100 units away from the camera will get mapped to (xa,ya)=(0,0), so the inverse isn't uniquely defined.
More importantly, that's not how you calculate perspective. Generally the perspective scaling factor is defined to be viewdist/zdist where zdist is the perpendicular distance from the camera to the object and viewdist is a constant which is the distance from the camera to the hypothetical screen onto which everything is being projected. (See the diagram here, but feel free to ignore everything else on that page.) The scaling factor you're using in your example doesn't have the same behaviour.
Here's a stab at trying to convert your code into a correct perspective calculation (note I'm not simplifying to 2D; perspective is about projecting three dimensions to two, trying to simplify the problem to 2D is kind of pointless):
camera = new MapPoint(60, 60, 10);
camera_z = camera.x*zDistX + camera.y*zDistY + camera.z*zDistz;
// viewdist is the distance from the viewer's eye to the screen in
// "world units". You'll have to fiddle with this, probably.
viewdist = 10.0;
xa = mapP.x*xDistX + mapP.y*xDistY + mapP.z*xDistZ;
ya = mapP.x*yDistX + mapP.y*yDistY + mapP.z*yDistZ;
za = mapP.x*zDistX + mapP.y*zDistY + mapP.z*zDistZ;
zdist = camera_z - za;
scaling_factor = viewdist / zdist;
xa *= scaling_factor;
ya *= scaling_factor;
You're only going to return xa and ya from this function; za is just for the perspective calculation. I'm assuming the the "za-direction" points out of the screen, so if the pre-projection x-axis points towards the viewer then zDistX should be positive and vice-versa, and similarly for zDistY. For a trimetric projection you would probably have xDistZ==0, yDistZ<0, and zDistZ==0. This would make the pre-projection z-axis point straight up post-projection.
Now the bad news: this function doesn't have an inverse either. Any point (xa,ya) is the image of an infinite number of points (x,y,z). But! If you assume that z=0, then you can solve for x and y, which is possibly good enough.
To do that you'll have to do some linear algebra. Compute camera_x and camera_y similar to camera_z. That's the post-transformation coordinates of the camera. The point on the screen has post-tranformation coordinates (xa,ya,camera_z-viewdist). Draw a line through those two points, and calculate where in intersects the plane spanned by the vectors (xDistX, yDistX, zDistX) and (xDistY, yDistY, zDistY). In other words, you need to solve the equations:
x*xDistX + y*xDistY == s*camera_x + (1-s)*xa
x*yDistX + y*yDistY == s*camera_y + (1-s)*ya
x*zDistX + y*zDistY == s*camera_z + (1-s)*(camera_z - viewdist)
It's not pretty, but it will work.
I think that with your post i can solve the problem. Still, to clarify some questions:
Solving the problem in 2d is useless indeed, but this was only done to make the problem easier to grasp (for me and for the readers here). My program actually give's a perfect 3d projection (i checked it with 3d images rendered with blender). I did left something out about the inverse function though. The inverse function is only for coordinates between 0..camera.x * 0.5 and 0.. camera.y*0.5. So in my example between 0 and 30. But even then i have doubt's about my function.
In my projection the z-axis is always straight up, so to calculate the height of an object i only used the vieuwingangle. But since you cant actually fly or jumpt into the sky everything has only a 2d point. This also means that when you try to solve the x and y, the z really is 0.
I know not every funcion has an inverse, and some functions do, but only for a particular domain. My basic thought in this all was... if i can draw a grid using a function... every point on that grid maps to exactly one map-point. I can read the x and y coordinate so if i just had the correct function i would be able to calculate the inverse.
But there is no better replacement then some good solid math, and im very glad you took the time to give a very helpfull responce :).
I have a renderer using directx and openGL, and a 3d scene. The viewport and the window are of the same dimensions.
How do I implement picking given mouse coordinates x and y in a platform independent way?
If you can, do the picking on the CPU by calculating a ray from the eye through the mouse pointer and intersect it with your models.
If this isn't an option I would go with some type of ID rendering. Assign each object you want to pick a unique color, render the objects with these colors and finally read out the color from the framebuffer under the mouse pointer.
EDIT: If the question is how to construct the ray from the mouse coordinates you need the following: a projection matrix P and the camera transform C. If the coordinates of the mouse pointer is (x, y) and the size of the viewport is (width, height) one position in clip space along the ray is:
mouse_clip = [
float(x) * 2 / float(width) - 1,
1 - float(y) * 2 / float(height),
0,
1]
(Notice that I flipped the y-axis since often the origin of the mouse coordinates are in the upper left corner)
The following is also true:
mouse_clip = P * C * mouse_worldspace
Which gives:
mouse_worldspace = inverse(C) * inverse(P) * mouse_clip
We now have:
p = C.position(); //origin of camera in worldspace
n = normalize(mouse_worldspace - p); //unit vector from p through mouse pos in worldspace
Here's the viewing frustum:
First you need to determine where on the nearplane the mouse click happened:
rescale the window coordinates (0..640,0..480) to [-1,1], with (-1,-1) at the bottom-left corner and (1,1) at the top-right.
'undo' the projection by multiplying the scaled coordinates by what I call the 'unview' matrix: unview = (P * M).inverse() = M.inverse() * P.inverse(), where M is the ModelView matrix and P is the projection matrix.
Then determine where the camera is in worldspace, and draw a ray starting at the camera and passing through the point you found on the nearplane.
The camera is at M.inverse().col(4), i.e. the final column of the inverse ModelView matrix.
Final pseudocode:
normalised_x = 2 * mouse_x / win_width - 1
normalised_y = 1 - 2 * mouse_y / win_height
// note the y pos is inverted, so +y is at the top of the screen
unviewMat = (projectionMat * modelViewMat).inverse()
near_point = unviewMat * Vec(normalised_x, normalised_y, 0, 1)
camera_pos = ray_origin = modelViewMat.inverse().col(4)
ray_dir = near_point - camera_pos
Well, pretty simple, the theory behind this is always the same
1) Unproject two times your 2D coordinate onto the 3D space. (each API has its own function, but you can implement your own if you want). One at Min Z, one at Max Z.
2) With these two values calculate the vector that goes from Min Z and point to Max Z.
3) With the vector and a point calculate the ray that goes from Min Z to MaxZ
4) Now you have a ray, with this you can do a ray-triangle/ray-plane/ray-something intersection and get your result...
I have little DirectX experience, but I'm sure it's similar to OpenGL. What you want is the gluUnproject call.
Assuming you have a valid Z buffer you can query the contents of the Z buffer at a mouse position with:
// obtain the viewport, modelview matrix and projection matrix
// you may keep the viewport and projection matrices throughout the program if you don't change them
GLint viewport[4];
GLdouble modelview[16];
GLdouble projection[16];
glGetIntegerv(GL_VIEWPORT, viewport);
glGetDoublev(GL_MODELVIEW_MATRIX, modelview);
glGetDoublev(GL_PROJECTION_MATRIX, projection);
// obtain the Z position (not world coordinates but in range 0 - 1)
GLfloat z_cursor;
glReadPixels(x_cursor, y_cursor, 1, 1, GL_DEPTH_COMPONENT, GL_FLOAT, &z_cursor);
// obtain the world coordinates
GLdouble x, y, z;
gluUnProject(x_cursor, y_cursor, z_cursor, modelview, projection, viewport, &x, &y, &z);
if you don't want to use glu you can also implement the gluUnProject you could also implement it yourself, it's functionality is relatively simple and is described at opengl.org
Ok, this topic is old but it was the best I found on the topic, and it helped me a bit, so I'll post here for those who are are following ;-)
This is the way I got it to work without having to compute the inverse of Projection matrix:
void Application::leftButtonPress(u32 x, u32 y){
GL::Viewport vp = GL::getViewport(); // just a call to glGet GL_VIEWPORT
vec3f p = vec3f::from(
((float)(vp.width - x) / (float)vp.width),
((float)y / (float)vp.height),
1.);
// alternatively vec3f p = vec3f::from(
// ((float)x / (float)vp.width),
// ((float)(vp.height - y) / (float)vp.height),
// 1.);
p *= vec3f::from(APP_FRUSTUM_WIDTH, APP_FRUSTUM_HEIGHT, 1.);
p += vec3f::from(APP_FRUSTUM_LEFT, APP_FRUSTUM_BOTTOM, 0.);
// now p elements are in (-1, 1)
vec3f near = p * vec3f::from(APP_FRUSTUM_NEAR);
vec3f far = p * vec3f::from(APP_FRUSTUM_FAR);
// ray in world coordinates
Ray ray = { _camera->getPos(), -(_camera->getBasis() * (far - near).normalize()) };
_ray->set(ray.origin, ray.dir, 10000.); // this is a debugging vertex array to see the Ray on screen
Node* node = _scene->collide(ray, Transform());
cout << "node is : " << node << endl;
}
This assumes a perspective projection, but the question never arises for the orthographic one in the first place.
I've got the same situation with ordinary ray picking, but something is wrong. I've performed the unproject operation the proper way, but it just doesn't work. I think, I've made some mistake, but can't figure out where. My matix multiplication , inverse and vector by matix multiplications all seen to work fine, I've tested them.
In my code I'm reacting on WM_LBUTTONDOWN. So lParam returns [Y][X] coordinates as 2 words in a dword. I extract them, then convert to normalized space, I've checked this part also works fine. When I click the lower left corner - I'm getting close values to -1 -1 and good values for all 3 other corners. I'm then using linepoins.vtx array for debug and It's not even close to reality.
unsigned int x_coord=lParam&0x0000ffff; //X RAW COORD
unsigned int y_coord=client_area.bottom-(lParam>>16); //Y RAW COORD
double xn=((double)x_coord/client_area.right)*2-1; //X [-1 +1]
double yn=1-((double)y_coord/client_area.bottom)*2;//Y [-1 +1]
_declspec(align(16))gl_vec4 pt_eye(xn,yn,0.0,1.0);
gl_mat4 view_matrix_inversed;
gl_mat4 projection_matrix_inversed;
cam.matrixProjection.inverse(&projection_matrix_inversed);
cam.matrixView.inverse(&view_matrix_inversed);
gl_mat4::vec4_multiply_by_matrix4(&pt_eye,&projection_matrix_inversed);
gl_mat4::vec4_multiply_by_matrix4(&pt_eye,&view_matrix_inversed);
line_points.vtx[line_points.count*4]=pt_eye.x-cam.pos.x;
line_points.vtx[line_points.count*4+1]=pt_eye.y-cam.pos.y;
line_points.vtx[line_points.count*4+2]=pt_eye.z-cam.pos.z;
line_points.vtx[line_points.count*4+3]=1.0;