I am still developing on my sci-fi video game using my own custom game engine. Now, I want to implement the combat system in my game and in the engine. While nearly everything is clear to me, I wonder how to do proper laser beams like the ones known from Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, etc.?
I did some online research, however I did not find any suitable article. I am pretty sure I searched with the wrong keywords/tags. Can you give me some hints how to implement such effects as laser beams? I think, it'd be enough to know the proper techniques or terms I need for online research...
A common way is to draw three (or more) intersecting transparent planes like this, if you excuse my crude drawing:
Each of them then bears the same laser texture that fades to black near the top and bottom edges:
If you add any subtle detail, remember to scale the texture coordinates appropriately based on the length of the beam and enable wrapping.
Finally, and most importantly, use a shader that shows only the planes facing the camera, while fading away the ones at a glancing angle to hide the fact that we're using intersecting planes and make the beam look smooth and plausible. The blending should be additive. You should also add some extra effects to the ends of the beam, again to hide the planes.
Related
EDIT: I've solved the issue below the tilde line -- the missing chunks -- by fixing an elementary error in my for-loop dealing with calculating face normals. I now have a new problem though: strange, unwanted shadows on the surface itself. Some areas appear darker than others... See the next picture for the current issue.
I have an omni light added to my scene's root node as well as a directional light added in the same manner. For some reason I can't seem to light the underbelly of the surface otherwise. Notice the strange shadow on the inside of the concave surface (it's more pronounced when I remove the subdivision effect as I have done here) -->
Here is the surface from above -- notice how some areas seem strangely darker.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a concave surface.
I have these smooth, curved planes in 3D space. Right now, they look rather cartoonish -- I would like to utilize some form of lighting to make them look more "3D-ish."
I have tried various combinations of ambient lighting, omni lighting, and default lighting, but nothing seems to work right. I get something quite strange when I apply something like a basic omni light --
Here is another look at a better angle using omni lighting. Looks like someone took a bite out of it --
Am I overlooking a specific type of light or lighting strategy?
I'd like to avoid used baked lighting, because the scene is rather simple. Thanks.
I'll outline my steps for the bold.
1: I specify the vertices for each of the four faces of a pyramid-like shape. Like this (apologies for my lack of artistic ability) -->
2: I specify the indices for the face, i.e., [0,1,2, 0,2,3, etc.]
I create a dictionary mapping each vertex to the sum of that vertex's adjacent, normalized face normals.
I append each of these summed up normalized per-vertex normals to a vector.
I combine the vertices, indices, and vector of normals to create an SCN Geometry.
To get the rounded look, I increase the subdivision count.
Pray that it works.
I'm new to the 3D world, so I could be way out in left field and not even know it.
This should give you a reasonable result with minimal effort and the least possible need to understand 3D lighting.
Open the Fox game example/sample from Apple:
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/samplecode/Fox/Introduction/Intro.html
Delete everything from the level.scn Scene Graph other than Lights, Camera and the Mountain.
And then add your geometry object to a node at the bottom, where I have the sphere highlighted at the bottom of the Scene Graph....
Now the material needs a bit of work, to make it useful.
Select the Mountain by clicking on it in the View, and goto the material editor and make it look like this, just keep checking against this image until yours matches the few (weird) changes I've made. And trust me this will work out fine:
When you want to get that lovely red you have, you simply change this property: DIFFUSE : It's right at the top of the Material settings.
Now you have a material and lighting setup that gives a reasonable approximation of curvature in a 3D space.
Applying this material to your object is a little weird, and unintuitive, you go here, and click on the add button, and pick the material with the same name as the one in the above image, that’s on the mountain.
You can improve this by adding two more lights in what’s known as a “3 point lighting setup”, google this phrase to see it explained.
Further, you can add off screen (out of camera) placards, usually white, to manage key reflections to further assist in users getting a feel for what’s being presented.
My question maybe a bit too broad but i am going for the concept. How can i create surface as they did in "Cham Cham" app
https://itunes.apple.com/il/app/cham-cham/id760567889?mt=8.
I got most of the stuff done in the app but the surface change with user touch is quite different. You can change its altitude and it grows and shrinks. How this can be done using sprite kit what is the concept behind that can anyone there explain it a bit.
Thanks
Here comes the answer from Cham Cham developers :)
Let me split the explanation into different parts:
Note: As the project started quite a while ago, it is implemented using pure OpenGL. The SpiteKit implementation might differ, but you just need to map the idea over to it.
Defining the ground
The ground is represented by a set of points, which are interpolated over using Hermite Spline. Basically, the game uses a bunch of points defining the surface, and a set of points between each control one, like the below:
The red dots are control points, and eveyrthing in between is computed used the metioned Hermite interpolation. The green points in the middle have nothing to do with it, but make the whole thing look like boobs :)
You can choose an arbitrary amount of steps to make your boobs look as smooth as possible, but this is more to do with performance.
Controlling the shape
All you need to do is to allow the user to move the control points (or some of them, like in Cham Cham; you can define which range every point could move in etc). Recomputing the interpolated values will yield you an changed shape, which remains smooth at all times (given you have picked enough intermediate points).
Texturing the thing
Again, it is up to you how would you apply the texture. In Cham Cham, we use one big texture to hold the background image and recompute the texture coordinates at every shape change. You could try a more sophisticated algorithm, like squeezing the texture or whatever you found appropriate.
As for the surface texture (the one that covers the ground – grass, ice, sand etc) – you can just use the thing called Triangle Strips, with "bottom" vertices sitting at every interpolated point of the surface and "top" vertices raised over (by offsetting them against "bottom" ones in the direction of the normal to that point).
Rendering it
The easiest way is to utilize some tesselation library, like libtess. What it will do it covert you boundary line (composed of interpolated points) into a set of triangles. It will preserve texture coordinates, so that you can just feed these triangles to the renderer.
SpriteKit note
Unfortunately, I am not really familiar with SpriteKit engine, so cannot guarantee you will be able to copy the idea over one-to-one, but please feel free to comment on the challenging aspects of the implementation and I will try to help.
I'm working on a game idea (2D) that needs directional lights. Basically I want to add light sources that can be moved and the light rays interact with the other bodies on the scene.
What I'm doing right now is some test where using sensors (box2d) and ccDrawLine I could achieve something similar to what I want. Basically I send a bunch of sensors from certain point and with raycast detect collisions, get the end points and draw lines over the sensors.
Just want to get some opinions if this is a good way of doing this or is other better options to build something like this?
Also I would like to know how to make a light effect over this area (sensors area) to provide a better looking light effect. Any ideas?
I can think of one cool looking effect you could apply. Put some particles inside the area where light is visible, like sparks shining and falling down very slowly, something like on this picture
Any approach to this problem would need to use collision detection anyway so your is pretty nice providing you have limited number of box2d objects.
Other approach when you have a lot of box2d objects I would think of is to render your screen to texture with just solid colors (should be fast) and perform ray tracing on that generated texture to find pixels that are going to be affected by light. That way you are limited to resolution not the number of box2d objects.
There is a good source code here about dynamic and static lights in a 2D space.
It's Ruby code but easy to understand so it shouldn't be long to port it to Obj-C/Cocos2D/box2D.
I really hope it will help you as it helped me.
Hm, interesting question. Cocos2D does provide some rather flexible masking effects. You could have a gradient mask that you lay over your objects, where its position depends on the position of the "light", thereby giving the effect that your objects were being coloured by the light.
I'm trying to make my OpenCV-based fiducial marker detection more robust when the user moves the camera (phone) violently. Markers are ArTag-style with a Hamming code embedded within a black border. Borders are detected by thresholding the image, then looking for quads based on the found contours, then checking the internals of the quads.
In general, decoding of the marker is fairly robust if the black border is recognized. I've tried the most obvious thing, which is downsampling the image twice, and also performing quad-detection on those levels. This helps with camera defocus on extreme nearground markers, and also with very small levels of image blur, but doesn't hugely help the general case of camera motion blur
Is there available research on ways to make detection more robust? Ideas I'm wondering about include:
Can you do some sort of optical flow tracking to "guess" the positions of the marker in the next frame, then some sort of corner detection in the region of those guesses, rather than treating the rectangle search as a full-frame thresholding?
On PCs, is it possible to derive blur coeffiients (perhaps by registration with recent video frames where the marker was detected) and deblur the image prior to processing?
On smartphones, is it possible to use the gyroscope and/or accelerometers to get deblurring coefficients and pre-process the image? (I'm assuming not, simply because if it were, the market would be flooded with shake-correcting camera apps.)
Links to failed ideas would also be appreciated if it saves me trying them.
Yes, you can use optical flow to estimate where the marker might be and localise your search, but it's just relocalisation, your tracking will have broken for the blurred frames.
I don't know enough about deblurring except to say it's very computationally intensive, so real-time might be difficult
You can use the sensors to guess the sort of blur you're faced with, but I would guess deblurring is too computational for mobile devices in real time.
Then some other approaches:
There is some really smart stuff in here: http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~gk/publications/KleinDrummond2004IVC.pdf where they're doing edge detection (which could be used to find your marker borders, even though you're looking for quads right now), modelling the camera movements from the sensors, and using those values to estimate how an edge in the direction of blur should appear given the frame-rate, and searching for that. Very elegant.
Similarly here http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~jye/lab_research/11/BLUT_iccv_11.pdf they just pre-blur the tracking targets and try to match the blurred targets that are appropriate given the direction of blur. They use Gaussian filters to model blur, which are symmetrical, so you need half as many pre-blurred targets as you might initially expect.
If you do try implementing any of these, I'd be really interested to hear how you get on!
From some related work (attempting to use sensors/gyroscope to predict likely location of features from one frame to another in video) I'd say that 3 is likely to be difficult if not impossible. I think at best you could get an indication of the approximate direction and angle of motion which may help you model blur using the approaches referenced by dabhaid but I think it unlikely you'd get sufficient precision to be much more help.
I am trying to write a strategy game using XNA 4.0, with a dynamically generating map, and it's really difficult to create all the ground textures, having to distort them individually in photoshop.
So what I want to do is create a flat image, and then apply the distortion programatically to simulate perspective, by moving the corners of the image.
Here is an example done in photoshop:
How can I do that in XNA?
My answer isn't XNA-specific as I've never actually used the library; however the concept should still apply.
In general, the best way to get a good perspective effect is to actually give 3d coordinates and transformations and let DirectX/OpenGL handle the rest. This has great benefits over attempting to do it yourself - specifically, ease of use, performance (much of the work is passed on to your graphics card), and perspective-correct texturing. And nothing's stopping you from doing 3d and 2d in the same scene, if that's a concern. There are numerous tutorials online for getting set up in the third dimension with XNA. I'd suggest heading over to MSDN.