A basic rotating question - How you can couple 2 figures (a box/cube with a sphere in it ANYWHERE in the cube, BUT in the center) so that these 2 are coupled ROTATIONALLY (that is why I don't want the sphere to be in the center of the cube) IN PERSPECTIVE.
In other words, when I rotate the cube with the mouse and "bring" the sphere closer to the front (say, make a 180-degree rotation), the perspective changes accordingly and the sphere gets bigger visually (compared to the position on the back)?
Asked a couple of ScalaFX experts - they both said it was a very good question and recommended to post it here.
Cheers:
Zar
>
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do, but you can can rotate multiple objects by applying a Rotate transform to the Group that contains all of those objects. If you only want to rotate some of the objects, but not all of them, you have to structure the scene so that the objects being rotated have a common parent Group - with none of the non-rotating objects belonging to it. Applying Rotate transforms to that parent Group will rotate all of its child objects too. Rotation will be about the origin of that parent Group.
Update: I forgot to mention how to address the issue of perspective. The 3D objects in a scene aren't directly affected by perspective, since perspective is a property of how the scene is rendered. This rendering is performed by Camera objects. To render the scene using perspective (as opposed to using orthogonal, or parallel, as it's referred to in JavaFX/ScalaFX), add a PerspectiveCamera to the scene and view the scene using that camera. For further information on this, refer to the following: Getting Started with JavaFX 3D Graphics: Camera
Update 2: I've created a gist on GitHub with a complete program for doing this.
Update 3: Made box transparent & moved sphere inside the box. Now left/primary mouse button rotates box + sphere when dragged; right/secondary mouse button moves camera dolly towards/away from boxes, changing perspective accordingly.
Update 4: So, if I understand you right, you want to transform the shapes in your 3D scene so that they look as though perspective has been applied to them. Do I have that right?
If so, the reason that this is not a "built-in" capability is for the reasons outlined below. Please forgive me if you already know all of this, incidentally - I'm just trying to provide a comprehensive answer. :-)
Scene graphs (as typically used by retained mode 3D systems, such as JavaFX) capture the geometry, location, rotation, color, etc. of a 3D scene in a hierarchical tree structure. The idea is that the modeler only need to worry about the content of the scene - ensuring dimensions, alignments, etc. are correct - and do not need to worry about how the scene is rendered.
Perspective can be applied when the scene is rendered as it would appear from a specific viewpoint; i.e. when the scene is translated into a 2D projection such as a GUI window. (The process of determining what the scene looks like in perspective is a part of the rendering algorithm - but does not require modification, deformation, etc. of the scene.) If perspective is not enabled, then the scene is typically rendered orthogonally, without any vanishing points, apparent scaling, etc. The key point here is that the scene itself is unaffected by how it is viewed.
With this arrangement, it's possible to have multiple views of the same scene. Not only can they each have a different viewpoint, but some can be orthogonal and some can use perspective - yet each can render the scene correctly without any confusing artifacts. If it worked the way you seem to think it does, then you could only ever have a single view of the scene at a time, as the scene would need to be deformed during rendering to look right from that sole viewpoint. When editing the scene, you'd need to remove those deformations to prevent mind-blowing confusion for the modeler.
In short, it's a very unusual requirement that the scene itself be deformed to show what it would look like in perspective. That's why there's no built-in capability to do this in any 3D system that I know of.
Assuming that you wish to proceed - using JavaFX - here's some points to bear in mind:
I don't believe that the regular 3D primitives (namely Box, Sphere & Cylinder) can be deformed to represent a perspective view of them. You will have to construct the shapes using the TriangleMesh and MeshView objects (the former captures the geometry of the shape, the latter allows it to be treated as a 3D shape).
To apply perspective, you would have to reposition the vertices in the TriangleMesh instances to deform the scene appropriately. If you need to be able to change the viewpoint, or rotate the box & sphere, then these changes would need to be dynamic, so that the calculated vertex coordinates react to the changing viewpoint and/or rotation. Because of fish-eye effects at high levels of perspective dilation, you might need more vertices than you might expect.
Given your requirements, you still need a camera to view the scene. Clearly, you cannot use the PerspectiveCamera to render the scene, or it will treat the scene as unadjusted and will apply a second level of perspective, ruining your carefully calculated deformations. You will then need to use ParallelCamera to produce orthogonal views of your scene.
Unfortunately, JavaFX's support for using ParallelCamera with 3D scenes is still very immature. (The ParallelCamera is primarily used to render 2D scenes, such as dialogs, buttons, menu's, sliders, etc.) You might find it difficult to use in practice. (You can approximate an orthogonal projection using the PerspectiveCamera by utilizing a very narrow field of view and moving the camera away from the scene by some distance. You would also need to adjust the clipping planes to avoid the image disappearing.)
Finally, at some point, you will need to be able to position the camera at the same location as the viewpoint being used for the perspective deformation. When the camera is synchronized with that viewpoint, then your scene - although rendered orthogonally - will appear as a correct perspective projection of the intended scene. Whenever the camera and the viewpoint are separated, the scene will appear unnatural and distorted, which - I understand - is your intention.
In summary, I would say that what you intend to do is far from trivial, and the implementation is way beyond the scope of a StackOverflow answer. Good luck!
Mike:
Sorry for the delay, I am finishing something for a client in a totally different application area and pulled-away from my "teaching perspective" toy ...
Just got the notification for the new answers and had a quick look - one thing I noticed right away was that the sphere is outside rather than inside the transparent box (haven’t looked at the code yet).
What I actually expected was a "built-in" perspective "argument" (either in the rotation transformation, or the scene definition, or a stand-alone function - in one way are another), which allows for different perspective to be rendered depending on the angle between the 2 (initially) parallel opposing edges at the bottom, for example. I understand of course that in reality it depends on the ViewPoint Position and you are not "allowed" to forcefully change this angle, but the goal here is simply a "cause-and-effect" toy in a 3D scene.
Controlling the camera will not allow for that, since it imposes the perspective very smoothly (as it would be in real life) rather than allowing the child to directly control the edges and immediately see how her action changes the perspective, rather than playing with the viewpoint.
As mentioned in the original question, I'd expect a function like the one sketched below (and I would expect it to be BUILT-IN in a sensible 3D-product since it is so basic, rather than forcing me or you to manually craft some code for something that should have been there from the get-go - perspective is simply a basic fundamental and hopefully will be covered by the rendering in some form in the next release):
def doPersepctive( myBox: MyBoxContainer, angle: Int, viewPoint: Point): Int = {
// Presents the perspective look in a way defined by the "angle" between the
// (initially) parallel edges of myBoxContainer, from the viewPoint Point (3D).
// Rotate everything within the boundaries of MyBoxContainer. The
// bigger the angle, the smaller the sphere at the back, of course.
// Returns the rotatedAngle after the mouseEvent to enable auto-replay later, so
// the kid can examine what her actions were and see the effect of those actions.
}
Tnx again for your entry, I will certainly have a look at the code, and reply - but you see the general picture above. Sorry for the delay again:
Z
>
Mike:
This is more like the original intension - although I find merits in the first attempt too, actually.
I made the sphere (in the first version) transparent (via diffuseColor = Color.web("#ffff0080") ), so now she can play with both versions, and both are pretty much SIMILAR from a child's perspective (meaning one of the objects is transparent, moreover different objects in these versions).
Now - I tried to make the BOX transparent (where the sphere is outside) and I failed - is there a reason for that? In other words trying to make the object passing "behind" visible? One transparent object passing behind another transparent object, so to say?
In the second version I ALSO cannot see "behind the object", meaning I can NOT see the EDGE of the box passing behind the sphere. Not only that – I can NOT see the back edge EVEN when it is not behind the sphere (but only behind the front side of the box)!
My question in a sense is "CAN both objects be made transparent" - I guess this is the closest to what I am trying to ask. May be with different “transparency %”, but still transparent…
Tnx again:
Zar
>
Yes, Mike - your answer was completely relevant and I do accept it with the thoughtfully-explained shortcomings of the current ScalaFX implementation. If I need to "click" somewhere to formally TAG this, please let me know - I am new to this group and don't know the formalities really.
Tnx again:
Zar
I expected that there was a parameter that controls the Perspective during a Rotational Transformation, but cannot find one. The sample problem is clearly defined - you have a BOX/CUBE and a smaller sphere inside; now when you rotate the BOX, the sphere rotates WITH it but "in perspective", meaning that if you bring the sphere in front, it looks (draws) bigger correspondingly with the "perspective".
Zar
>
>
BTW, if it were possible to add the Sphere as a child of the Box, then you ...
<
That is not possible, but CAN I add the sphere AT RUN TIME rather than at compile time? In other words is there an "addObject" that adds the sphere after the kid has played with box for 1 min and 1 min after running the program, the sphere appears. Cannot see anything like that here:
http://www.scalafx.org/api/8.0/index.html#package
May be I am missing something ?
Zar
>
I don't know how to explain this but the objects I make in ELEMENT 3D aren't 3D but more like 2.5D.
I made a video so you can see the problem.
https://sendvid.com/s1hv1ay3
My recording software didn't record the Element interface at 0:24, but I was trying to show in that interface that you could rotate it without problems.
You're not understanding how Element3D (and aspects of the AE interface) work. Think of the layer you apply it to as being its own window "into a 3D world". You don't rotate the layer itself, you rotate the objects within the Element3D world by changing the parameters in the timeline or Effects controls pane. You were using the rotate tool in the video with the Element3D-effected layer selected. Don't do that. Use the individual parameters within Element. Another way to rotate around the 3D object(s) is to use the camera. I suspect this is what you were attempting after seeing a tutorial or something. What you do is make a two-node camera and use the camera tool by cycling through the tool with the "c" key until you get camera rotate, which looks a bit similar to the rotate layer tool. With a two-node camera, rotating the camera allows you to rotate around the point of interest of the camera so it rotates around the object in 3D space. I suggest you get a more familiar with how 3D works in AE (which is not "true 3D", not 2.5D, but is "Planar 3D"; the Element3D plugin is one of the best 3D-integrated plugins working within this model).
don't ever move the layer the element 3d model is on.
Use the element effects controls (f3). usually found in group 1
I am building a node graph in a QGraphicsView and I am currently implementing panning.
I used the following question "how to pan images in QGraphicsView" to start but the panning is limited by the scrollbar range.
I also tried the translate method but it gives the same result. The view is limited to a certain rectangle.
I would like to pan without limits, the graph can becomes quite large and it is useful to be able to work in different area of the scene (one graph here, another graph over there, etc).
If you take a look at this video, at the 3 minute mark you'll see the demonstration panning the screen. The application here is one I developed and although it doesn't show it, the real estate of the board appears limitless when panning.
What I did for this was to create a QGraphicsScene of 32000 x 32000 and start the application with the view at the centre of the QGraphicsScene. The test team spent ages trying to pan to the edge of the graphics scene and everyone gave up before getting there - perhaps the scene could have been smaller!
The scroll bar policies are set to off and translation is done by moving the QGraphicsView via its translate function, passing in the delta of either touch, or mouse movement that is applied in the mouseMoveEvent.
Done this way, you need not worry about exceeding the scroll bar range and there was no problem creating a very large QGraphicsScene as it's just a coordinate space.
I came across the same issue. However, setting the scene to something big and leaving it I do not think is the best option. I have developed a dynamic way of changing the scene size so it lets you move freely. You can find it in this other stack overflow answer.
You want to plot graphs. Try out this Qt library - QCustomPlot , it will save you hours of hard work.
I would like draw a filled polygon on iPhone with Google map (Version 1.1.1, the last one).
Anyone knows how to do like that on ios :
(My code on Android)
mMap.addPolygon(new PolygonOptions()
.addAll(latLngList)
.fillColor(Color.BLUE)
.strokeColor(Color.RED)
.strokeWidth(3));
Regards,
PS : If you have many solutions, keep in mind that I have many Polygon to draw.
The SDK currently doesn't support filled polygons, however there is a feature request to add them here:
https://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-issues/issues/detail?id=5070
In the meantime, one option could be to draw your polygons into an image, and then add them as a ground overlay. This would be very limiting, but might work as a temporary workaround.
Another option is to add another view over the top of the map view and draw the polygons into it, and then update them whenever the map view moves. It isn't possible to perfectly synchronize another view with the map view, so your polygons will lag behind a bit as you pan/zoom around, but this might also be okay for you as a temporary workaround.
UPDATE
These are just some random ideas to try for the ground overlay approach, I'm not sure if they would work, but they might get you started:
I would suggest converting the lat/lon corners of the rectangle into MKMapPoint (using MKMapPointForCoordinate). These are equivalent to Google's coordinate system at zoom level 20.
You can then use the aspect ratio of the width/height of the rectangle in MKMapPoint coordinates to determine the aspect ratio of your ground overlay UIImage. Once you have the aspect ratio, you'll just need to experiment with actual sizes (ie guess a width, calculate the height from the aspect ratio) to find one which looks okay. The bigger it is, the finer the detail of your rectangle will be, but the more memory it will use, and probably the slower the performance will be. Also you might hit a hard limit at some size - I'm guessing the UIImage gets converted by the Google Maps SDK into a texture, and textures have a max size of 2048x2048 on iPhone 3GS+.
Then, use something similar to How to setRegion with google maps sdk for iOS? to calculate a zoom level and centre lat/lon. Instead of the map view width/height you would use your UIImage width/height, and you'd use the bounds of your rectangle instead of the bounds of the desired view. You also wouldn't need to calculate the scale from both the width and height (as the scale should be the same) - so just use one of them. Instead of creating a camera with the zoom level and centre lat/lon, set them on the GMSGroundOverlayOptions. Also set the ground overlay's anchor to the centre of the image (ie 0.5, 0.5).
The above describes how to add one GroundOverlay per rectangle. If you have lots of overlapping or nearby rectangles you could probably combine them into a single UIImage, but that would be a bit more complicated.
I'm currently upgrading from a DirectDraw system (yeah I know, it's very old) to DirectX10. It's a 2D system but simulates real world as each object has a range/depth in meters. There is a background image that is rendered and kept on the farthest z-order. All other objects are drawn on top of it and scaled according to what their range/depth would be. However, there is a certain type of object I have that is defined as a polygon and renders a bit different. It acts as an invisible occluder. For instance, an occluder is at a range/depth of 40 (my units are meters) and is defined by 5 vertices (a pentagon) in the middle of the viewport. There is a sprite object at the same viewport position but at a range/depth of 50. The desired output is to have the sprite object not rendered, but the background should be seen through both of them. So in essence these are invisible occluders, except that they do not occlude the background.
As a note, the occluders and the sprites all derive from the same base object type and are mixed together in a depth-sorted container.
My idea was to override the occluders Render method so they draw to a render target writing the range/depth values. I then would render the sprites as normal, but in the vertex or pixel shader would compare the range value of the sprite with the range values in the render target. However, it seems to me that I'd have to potentially read/write from the render target in the same pass before Present is called, and that's undefined. If i was to render the occluders, unbind the render target and pass the texture in for a lookup by the other objects, I'll have to convert the sprite positions into that texture space which may be non-trivial. Are either of these methods possible?
After thinking some more about it, one other idea came to mind. I could take the occluders and set their texture coordinates in reference to the background texture. In this way they would draw the same color values as the background, and because of the sorting if a sprite was behind it the user would still see the "background" but really it's the occluder looking like it.
Sorry if this is less a question and more thinking out loud, but I wanted to get impressions and ideas on the best way to go about this. Seems to me I have options but wasn't certain which was most efficient and which is easiest. Thanks in advance for any responses.
As stated in my comments I went with setting the texture coordinates in reference to the background image and then making sure the occluder, which was a simple polygon, was triangulated properly to make use of those texture coordinates.