I'm trying to assign a normal map to my geometry object in SceneKit editor. I picked up a random rainbow image(this is my first time doing normal maps) and assign it to a normal property(image). This is what I got.
and this is my xcode setup:
This really isn't the effect I was hoping for. I imagined there will be some parts of my cube sticking out and some will be indent. There should also be visible shadow since I checked casts Shadows property of my spot lights.
EDIT: found this webpage for making normal maps link, but results are still disappointing. If you look at an appropriate angle you can see that there is no indentation and nothing sticks out of the cube. Not sure if my expectations are to high though...
A normal is the direction a surface points, not how far it is perturbed from a reference point. It will only add surface detail when "lighting" is involved (including techniques like cubemap reflections).
What you're talking about is a displacement map, which combines normal and height. Parallax mapping is the optimal mix, between normal mapping and displacement mapping, for today's hardware.
Related
I'm struggling with a texture-baking process with 3DSmax software. I have a white 3D mesh with 2 image textures. I'm trying to get a diffusemap (see target_diffuse_map.jpg). To do this, I exectue the following steps:
1) Affect image-texture1 and image-texture2 to face1 and face2 of the objet.
2) Clone the object to get the white colors when baking texture.
3) unwrap UVM.
4) Rendering Texture to obtain the diffuse map.
5) Projection of the texture + white colors on the cloned object.
Please, find these steps on this small video I made: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h4v2CrL8OCLwdeVtLmpQwD250cawgJpi/view
I obtain a bad sampled and weird diffuse map (please see obtained_diffuse_map.jpg). What I want is target_diffuse_map.jpg.
I'm I forgetting some steps?
Thank you for your help.
You need to either:
Add a small amount of "Push" in the Projection Modifier
Uncheck "Use Cage" in the Projection Options dialog, while setting a very small value for the offset
Projection Mapping works by casting rays from points on the cage towards corresponding model points on your mesh. You did not push the cage out at all, therefore rays are not well defined; rays are cast from a point toward a direction which is the exact same point. This causes numerical errors and z-fighting. The there needs to be some time amount of push so the "from" and "to" points of each ray are different giving them a well-defined direction to travel.
The second option, instead of using the cage defined in the projection modifier, is to use the offset method (you probably still need to apply projection modifier though). This method defines each rays as starting from a point defined by taking the model point of the mesh and moving outward by a fixed offset amount in the direction of the normal. The advantage is that for curved objects with large polygons, it produces less distortion because the system uses the smoothed shading normal at each point. The disadvantage you can't have different cage distances at different points of the model, for better control. Use this method for round wooden barrels and other simplistic objects with large, smooth curves.
Also, your situation is made difficult by having different parts of the model very close to each other (touching) and embedded within each other - namely how the mouth of the bottle is inside the cap and the cap it touching the base. For this case, it might make sense to break the objects apart after you have the overall UV mapping, run projection mapping separately on each one separately, and then combine the maps back together in an image editor.
I have an ARKit app that uses plane detection, and successfully places objects on those planes. I want to use some of the information on what's sitting below the object in my approach to shading it - something a bit similar to the WWDC demo where the chameleon blended in with the color of the table. I want to grab the rectangular region of the screen around the footprint of the object, (or in this case, the bounding volume of the whole node would work just as well) so I can take the camera capture data for the region of interest and use it in the image processing, like a metal sphere that reflects the ground it's sitting on. I'm just not sure what combination of transforms to apply - I've tried various combinations of convertPoint and projectPoint, and I occasionally get the origin, height, or width right, but never all 3. Is there an easy helper method I'm missing? I assume basically what I'm looking for is a way of going from SCNNode -> extent.
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 trying to render 6 spot lights to create a point light for a shadow mapping algorithm.
I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, I've more or less followed the instructions here when setting up my view and projection matrices but the end result looks like this:
White areas are parts which are covered by one of the 6 shadow maps, the darker areas are ones which aren't covered by the shadowmaps. Obviously I don't have a problem with the teapots and boxes having their shadows projected onto the scene, however as you can see the 6 shadow maps have blindspots. Is this how a cubed shadow map is supposed to look? It doesn't look like a shadowmap of a point light source...
Actually you can adjust your six spots to have cones that perfectly fill each face of your cubemap. You can achieve this by setting each cone's aperture to create a circumscribed circle around each cubemap face. In this case you don't have to worry about overlapping, since the would be overlapping parts are out of the faces' area.
In other terms: adjust the lights' projection matrix' FOV, so it won't the view frustum that includes the light cone, but the cone will include the view frustum.
The a whole implementation see this paper.
What you're seeing here are a circle and two hyperbolas -- conic sections -- exactly the result you might expect if you took a double ended cone and intersected it with a plane.
This math may seem removed from the situation but it explains your problem. A spotlight creates a cone of light, and you can't entirely fill a solid space with a bunch of cones coming from the same point. (I'd suggest rolling up a bunch of pieces of paper and taping them together at the points to try it out.)
However, as you get far from the origin of your simulated-point-source, the cones converge to their assymptotes, and there is an infinitesimally-narrow gap in the light.
One option to solve this is to change the focus of the cones so that they overlap slightly -- this will create areas that are overexposed, but the overexposure will only become obvious as you get farther away. So long as all of your objects are near the point light source, this might not be much of an issue.
Another option is to move the focus of all of the lights much closer to their sources. This way, they'd converge to their assymptotes more quickly.