So basically when I try to draw more a mesh inside an FBX file its orientation is always removed and it's scaled down. I'm not sure if the issue is caused by code or the way I'm exporting the FBX files. I have been trying to narrow down the cause and I am fairly sure it's not caused by the way I export the FBX (but I could be wrong), so it's either the XNA content pipeline or my drawing code
Here are some pics I took to show my problem, where the gray background is in 3Ds Max as I see it and red background is in XNA:
THis is as it appears in 3D StudioMax: http://i.stack.imgur.com/e0oW4.png
This is how it appears in XNA: http://i.stack.imgur.com/1vOcx.png
Both are being viewed from the same angle and direction but varying distances.
Now what is really odd is if I create another mesh in max, say a box, and export that (along with the original model), it works fine: http://i.stack.imgur.com/SIDg9.png
So long as there is more than one mesh in the fbx model it draws properly (though I'm still suspicious if it's drawing with proper scaling applied, i.e. if in Max it is 1 unit long in XNA it becomes something like 1.27 units long), if there is less its orientation which I applied to it in 3D studio max is removed when I draw it.
This is how I draw the model:
model.CopyAbsoluteBoneTransformsTo(boneTransforms);
foreach (ModelMesh mesh in model.Meshes)
{
foreach (BasicEffect effect in mesh.Effects)
{
effect.World = boneTransforms[mesh.ParentBone.Index];
Vector3 cameraPosition = Camera.Get.Position;// new Vector3(0, 0, 0);
//cameraPosition.X = -Camera.Get.PosX;
//cameraPosition.Y = Camera.Get.PosY;
effect.View = Camera.Get.View;// Matrix.CreateLookAt(cameraPosition, cameraPosition + Camera.Get.LookDir, Camera.Get.Up);
effect.Projection = Matrix.CreatePerspectiveFieldOfView(MathHelper.PiOver4,
BaseGame.Get.GraphicsDevice.Viewport.AspectRatio,
0.01f, 1000000); //Matrix.CreateOrthographic(800 / 1, 480 / 1, 0, 1000000);
//effect.TextureEnabled = true;
effect.LightingEnabled = true;
effect.PreferPerPixelLighting = true;
//effect.SpecularColor = new Vector3(1, 0, 0);
}
mesh.Draw();
}
Obviously mesh.draw() is called twice when there is more than one mesh in the fbx file..
Generally if you are having a problem with the position or scale of the mesh while rendering, then it's likely to be related to the matrices. Not necessarily the exporting, but rather how you use them in the code.
I use blender3d for modelling, but I know that Blender3d actually defines different spaces when you are creating the meshes within the editor. For example, if you create a mesh while in 'object' mode, the position/rotation/scale of the object in the scene will not be exported (because that object will be the root of a new tree, centered around 0,0,0). So I would check for a similar situation in 3DMax - make sure you are transforming the vertices in Max relative to 0,0,0, or else you may lose the 'initial' translation and when you render in XNA, all the objects will be rendered around your 0,0,0 (i.e. appear mixed together).
Failing that, and I can't remember exactly off the top of my head, but I think you may need to multiply the current mesh's absolute matrix transform with that of the parent's world matrix transform. Although it's been a while so I'm not too sure.
Related
I have a custom mesh (created in blender) that I insert into Qt3D using the following code:
QMesh *mesh = new QMesh(rootEntity);
mesh->setSource(QUrl::fromLocalFile(baseUrl+"mesh.obj"));
This works fine; I can add it to an entity with a material and everything.
Then I create a custom material using a texture loaded from a .png. I do this using the following code:
Qt3DRender::QTextureLoader *loader = new Qt3DRender::QTextureLoader(rootEntity);
Qt3DExtras::QTextureMaterial *material = new Qt3DExtras::QTextureMaterial(rootEntity);
loader->setSource(QUrl::fromLocalFile(baseUrl+"pattern.jpg"));
material->setTexture(loader);
This also works fine. When I add this material to a built-in Qt mesh (e.g. QPlaneMesh or QSphereMesh) it shows perfectly on the surface as one would expect.
However - now comes the problem - if I add it with the QMesh specified above, the mesh just gets one homogeneous color which seems to be the average over the colors in the pattern. Here you can see what I mean: both objects have the same material. The top one is inserted externally while the bottom one is a QPlaneMesh.
Can someone explain me why that is the case? And is there a way to successfully add textures to custom meshes?
Note: I have tried this with 2D and 3D meshes and it is the same outcome.
Note 2: I have also tried it with diferent images and it still just gets one homogeneous average color.
UPDATE: I tried (following the suggestion in the answer) to add a texture attribute to the geometry of my imported mesh like the following:
Qt3DCore::QEntity *entity = new Qt3DCore::QEntity(rootEntity);
QMesh *mesh = new QMesh(entity);
mesh->setSource(QUrl::fromLocalFile(baseUrl+"mesh.obj"));
const int stride = (3 + 2 + 3 + 4) * sizeof(float);
QSize resolution = QSize(2,2);
const int nVerts = resolution.width() * resolution.height();
QAttribute *texCoordAttr = new QAttribute(mesh->geometry());
Qt3DRender::QBuffer *vertexBuffer = new Qt3DRender::QBuffer(mesh->geometry());
texCoordAttr->setName(QAttribute::defaultTextureCoordinate1AttributeName());
texCoordAttr->setVertexBaseType(QAttribute::Float);
texCoordAttr->setVertexSize(2);
texCoordAttr->setAttributeType(QAttribute::VertexAttribute);
texCoordAttr->setBuffer(vertexBuffer);
texCoordAttr->setByteStride(stride);
texCoordAttr->setByteOffset(3*sizeof(float));
texCoordAttr->setCount(nVerts);
vertexBuffer->setDataGenerator(QSharedPointer<PlaneVertexBufferFunctor>::create(1.0f,1.0f,resolution, false)); //these input values (width, height, resolution, mirrored) are probably the cause of the problem
mesh->geometry()->addAttribute(texCoordAttr); //it crashes here
entity->addComponent(mesh);
entity->addComponent(transform);
entity->addComponent(material);
I created the functor for setDataGenerator like in the QPlaneMesh code. Now I am suspecting the segmentation fault is because of sizing mismatch. So how can I get the correct width and height of an external mesh from its QGeometry? And what else might be wrong here?
It looks like the mesh is missing the texture coordinates. When you open the file with a text editor, do you see the key vt somewhere? Those are the texture coordinates. You can read about the format here.
If you still want the obj file that you have, you have to add texture coordinates if it doesn't have any. It's probably best to open the file in Blender and use its texture mapper - at least for more complex meshes. Guessing which vertex needs which texture coordinate is not really feasible.
The texture coordinates work as follows:
If you have an image of, say 500 by 400 pixels, the texture coordinate (0.7, 0.3) is (500 * 0.7, 400 * 0.3) = (350, 120), meaning that the vertex which has that texture coordinate will receive the color value of the pixel at (350, 120). Values inside a triangle will get interpolated.
If your obj file comes along with a mtl file then it probably already has texture coordinates. If you want to load this mtl file use the QSceneLoader and add it to its parent QEntity to display everything.
I would like to draw a grid on a canvas using EaselJS. I am using the new WebGL stage, StageGL.
A grid is basically N times of a horizontal line and M times of a vertical line.
I see multiple options:
Draw N+M lines as all different shapes (I am talking about EaselJS "Shape" instances), cache them (as WebGL needs rasters) and add them to the stage.
Draw 1 horizontal and 1 vertical line, cache them (as WebGL needs rasters) and somehow draw the same image in the stage
Draw a single shape which consists of N+M paths, cache it and add it to the stage.
Option #1 seems naive to me. They're all the same image, why drawing them to the cache N+M times?
Option #2 would solve the problem in option #1, but I don't know how to do it.
Option #3 results in a very large image. For N=50, M=50 and gridSpacing=50px, it would result in a 2500x2500 px image. I don't know if this is ideal.
Which one is the best approach?
Are there any other approaches? I don't think I am the first person who draws a grid :)
You can pretty easily cache a shape, and use the resulting cache (canvas) as the source for a Bitmap.
var shape = new createjs.Shape();
shape.graphics.drawStuff();
// Since shapes have no bounds, you will have to know the bounds based on what you draw:
shape.cache(x, y, w, h);
var bmp = new createjs.Bitmap(shape.cacheCanvas);
You can draw as many of these Bitmaps without any additional cost, since its the same source canvas/image. EaselJS StageGL (latest NEXT, released shortly hopefully) renders this in WebGL no problem.
Check out the SpriteSheetBuilder demo and docs in GitHub to draw content to a SpriteSheet/Sprite instead of a Bitmap.
Cheers.
I am working on a 3D mesh manipulator using this : http://leapmotion.com. So far, I have been able manipulate the points just fine, by 'grabbing' and moving them, however I now want to be able to rotate the mesh and work on the opposite face. What I have done is add an extra object that is called 'rotatable' as Shown below:
scene=new THREE.Scene();
camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(70,window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight,1,8000)
renderer=new THREE.WebGLRenderer( { clearColor: 0x000000, clearAlpha: 1, maxLights:5 } )
//This is the 'Mesh Scene'
rotatable = new THREE.Object3D()
scene.add(rotatable)
//Mesh we are altering
var material = new THREE.MeshNormalMaterial()
material.side=2
var geom = new THREE.SphereGeometry(200,10,10);
var sphere = new THREE.Mesh(geom, material)
rotatable.add(sphere)
I am then trying to change the vertices of this sphere, but to do so I need to do a 'collision test' in order to see if the vertex is being 'grabbed' This involves check the vertex position and see if it coincides with one of your finger position (psuedoCode below)
if(finger.x == vertex.x && finger.y == vertex.y && finger.z == vertex.z){
vertex.grabbed = true
}
This works fine when the rotatable's rotation is zero, however when it starts to rotate, the collision test will still be testing for the unrotated vertex position (which makes sense). My question is how to find the position of the vertex in its 'scene / global' position. The only way I can think of doing this so far is to calculate the rotation of the 'rotatable' and use this vector to calculate the new vertex position.
I know nothing about math, so this may not be the way to go, and even if it is I will have to struggle through it so hard that I won't ever know if I'm just doing the math incorrectly, or this isn't the way I should go about calculating it. Obviously I'm willing to go through this work, but just want to make sure this is the way to do it, rather then an other simpler method.
If there are any other questions about the code, please let me know, and Thanks in advance for your time!
Isaac
To get the world position of a vertex specified in local coordinates, apply the object's world transform to the vertex like so:
vertex.applyMatrix4( object.matrixWorld );
(I am not familiar with leapmotion, so hopefully it does not impact this answer.)
Tip: maxLights is no longer required. And it is best to avoid material.side = 2. Use material.side = THREE.DoubleSide instead.
You can find the constants here: https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/Three.js
three.js r.55
I am looking for a fairly simple image comparison method in AS3. I have taken an image from a web cam (with no subject) passed it in to bitmap data, then a second image is taken (this time with a subject) to compare this data, from these two images I would like to create a mask from the pixels that match on both bitmaps. I have been scratching my head for a while, and I am not really making any progress. Could any one point me in the right direction for pixel comparison method, something like getPixel32()
Cheers
Jono
use compare to create a difference between the two and then use treshold to extract the parts that interest you.
edit: actually it is pretty straight forward. the trick is to apply the threshold multiple times per channel using the mask parameter (otherwise the comparison only makes little sense, since 0x010000 (which is almost black) is consider greater than 0x0000FF (which is anything but black)). here's how:
var dif:BitmapData;//your original bitmapdata
var mask:BitmapData = new BitmapData(dif.width, dif.height, true, 0);
const threshold:uint = 0x20;
for (var i:int = 0; i < 3; i++)
mask.threshold(dif, dif.rect, new Point(), ">", threshold << (i * 8), 0xFF000000, 0xFF << (i * 8));
this creates a transparent mask. then the threshold is applied for all three channels, setting the alpha channel to fully opaque where the channels value exceeds the threshold value (you might wanna decrease it).
you can isolate the foreground object ("the guy in front of the webcam") by copying the alpha channel from the mask to the current video image.
one of the problems here is that you want to find if a pixel has ANY change to it, and if it does then to convert that pixel to another color (for masking). Unfortunately, a webcam's quality isn't great so even if your scene does not change at all the bitmapdata coming from the webcam will change slightly. Therefor, when your subject steps into frame...you will get pixel changes for the subject...but also noise in other areas due to lighting changes or camera quality. What you'll need to do is write a function that analyzes the result of a bitmapdaya.compare() for change in area's larger than _____ to determine if there is enough change to warrant an actual object being there. That will help remove noise and make your mask more accurate.
See also: Why is my image rotation algorithm not working?
This question isn't language specific, and is a math problem. I will however use some C++ code to explain what I need as I'm not experienced with the mathematic equations needed to express the problem (but if you know about this, I’d be interested to learn).
Here's how the image is composed:
ImageMatrix image;
image[0][0][0] = 1;
image[0][1][0] = 2;
image[0][2][0] = 1;
image[1][0][0] = 0;
image[1][1][0] = 0;
image[1][2][0] = 0;
image[2][0][0] = -1;
image[2][1][0] = -2;
image[2][2][0] = -1;
Here's the prototype for the function I'm trying to create:
ImageMatrix rotateImage(ImageMatrix image, double angle);
I'd like to rotate only the first two indices (rows and columns) but not the channel.
The usual way to solve this is by doing it backwards. Instead of calculating where each pixel in the input image ends up in the output image, you calculate where each pixel in the output image is located in the input image (by rotationg the same amount in the other direction. This way you can be sure that all pixels in the output image will have a value.
output = new Image(input.size())
for each pixel in input:
{
p2 = rotate(pixel, -angle);
value = interpolate(input, p2)
output(pixel) = value
}
There are different ways to do interpolation. For the formula of rotation I think you should check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#In_two_dimensions
But just to be nice, here it is (rotation of point (x,y) angle degrees/radians):
newX = cos(angle)*x - sin(angle)*y
newY = sin(angle)*x + cos(angle)*y
To rotate an image, you create 3 points:
A----B
|
|
C
and rotate that around A. To get the new rotated image you do this:
rotate ABC around A in 2D, so this is a single euler rotation
traverse in the rotated state from A to B. For every pixel you traverse also from left to right over the horizontal line in the original image. So if the image is an image of width 100, height 50, you'll traverse from A to B in 100 steps and from A to C in 50 steps, drawing 50 lines of 100 pixels in the area formed by ABC in their rotated state.
This might sound complicated but it's not. Please see this C# code I wrote some time ago:
rotoZoomer by me
When drawing, I alter the source pointers a bit to get a rubber-like effect, but if you disable that, you'll see the code rotates the image without problems. Of course, on some angles you'll get an image which looks slightly distorted. The sourcecode contains comments what's going on so you should be able to grab the math/logic behind it easily.
If you like Java better, I also have made a java version once, 14 or so years ago ;) ->
http://www.xs4all.nl/~perseus/zoom/zoom.java
Note there's another solution apart from rotation matrices, that doesn't loose image information through aliasing.
You can separate 2D image rotation into skews and scalings, which preserve the image quality.
Here's a simpler explanation
It seems like the example you've provided is some edge detection kernel. So if what you want to is detect edges of different angles you'd better choose some continuous function (which in your case might be a parametrized gaussian of x1 multiplied by x2) and then rotate it according to formulae provided by kigurai. As a result you would be able to produce a diskrete kernel more efficiently and without aliasing.