I am currently designing and developing a bespoke imagery viewer for exceptionally large image files (sometimes in the gigapixels). Fortunately these are provided as 256x256 tiles in staged resolution layers, then passed across to OpenGL when required.
The tiles themselves are managed via a QuadTree which seems like a strong solution for "almost power-of-two" images. However given an image with a extremely wide aspect ratio (e.g. 1 gigapixel x 50,000) the model starts to falter with large amounts of null tiles.
There will only ever be a limited number of tile's on display at a time.
I am using Java 7 with LWJGL to provide an OpenGL Context.
Does a QuadTree solution fit this problem, or are there better alternatives to managing the data?
Edit: Edited the title to make more sense.
The quad tree enforces that you split along both coordinate axes. Your problems has a wide aspect so one of the axes will be oversplit.
You have 2 solutions:
Use BSP. Similar concept but instead of spliting both coordinate ranges you pick one and split that into 2. With this you can split along the large range more often than over the smaller one.
Use grid of QuadTrees at the top level. This way you split the space into rough squares so that you make better use of the bits. This was also suggested by #Andreas in the comments.
Related
I am developing an isometric game in Java2D. I.e, note that I do not have direct access to hardware pixel shaders (real-time software pixel shaders aren't practical. I can do a single pass on every entity texture without a noticeable hit on performance)
I know the typical method would be to somehow encode the depth of the individual pixels into a depth buffer and look that up. However, I don't know how I can do that efficiently in Java2D. How would I store the depth buffer? How would I filter out the alpha in an image? Etc.
Up until now I have just been reversing the projection matrix I use to calculate the tile-coordinates. However, that doesn't work well when you have entities that render outside of those tile's bounds.
Another method I considered was using a color-map, however I have the same problems with this as I do with the depth buffer (and if I can get the depth buffer working I'd much rather use that.)
Here is a picture of what I am working with:
I've resolved this quite nicely. The solution is actually very simple, just unconventional.
The graphics are depth sorted via a TreeMap, and then rendered to the screen. One can simply traverse this TreeMap in reverse (and keep it until the next render cycle) to translate the cursor location to the proper image it falls over (by testing the pixels [in reverse render order] and checking if they are transparent.)
The solution is in the open-source project, under the io.github.jevaengine.world.World class, pick method. https://github.com/JeremyWildsmith/JevaEngine/blob/master/jevaengine/src/main/java/io/github/jevaengine/world/World.java
So, I'm creating a 2d top-down game in Java.
I'm following instructions from Java 2D: Hardware Accelerating - Part 2 - Buffer Strategies to take advantage of hardware acceleration.
Basically, what I'm thinking is this:
I'd like to be able to easily add more sections to the map. So I'd rather not go the route suggested in a few of the tutorials I've seen (each map tile has an adjacency list of surrounding tiles; beginning with a center tile, populate the screen with a breadth-first search).
Instead, my idea would be to have screen-sized collections of tiles (say 32x32 for simplicity), and each of these screen "chunks" would have an list referencing each adjacent collection. Then, I would create a buffer for the current screen and the 8 adjacent screens and draw the visible portion in the VRAM buffer.
My question is, would this be a correct way to go about this, or is there a better option? I've looked through quite a few tutorials, but they all seem to offer the same (seemingly high maintenance) options.
It would seem this would be a better choice, as doing things at the tile level would require 1024 times as many adjacency lists. Also, the reason I was considering putting only the visible portion in VRAM, while leaving the "current" screen and its adjacent screens in standard buffers was because I'm new to hardware acceleration and am not entirely sure how much space is acceptable to assume to be available. Because Java attempts to accelerate standard buffers anyways, it should theoretically be as fast as putting each in VRAM?
Any and all suggestions are welcome!
I haven't looked at any of the popular tile-based game engines, but I'd consider using the fly-weight pattern to render only the tiles that are visible in the viewport of a JScrollPane. JTable is both an example and a usable implementation.
Addendum: One advantage of the JTable approach is view-model separation, which allows one to relegate the acquisition of tile-related resources to the model. This makes it easier to optimize without having to change the view.
Even without scroll bars, one can leverage scrollRectToVisible() by extending JComponent or an appropriate subclass. The setDoubleBuffered() method may be helpful, too.
I'm using JOGL (OpenGL for Java) for my application and I need to draw tons of strings on screen at once and my current solution is far too slow. Right now I'm drawing the strings using TextRenderer using the draw3D method and for even a moderate number of strings (around 300-500), it just kills the FPS. I started messing with drawing text onto the object textures, which is much faster, but there are a few problems with it. The first is that allocating all those textures requires a lot of memory. The second is that I need to find a way to size the texture so its only as big as the string and then map it to the object without stretching. The problem there is that all these thousands of boxes are using a single model being rendered with a call list. I'm not sure its possible to change the texture mapping for each object in that situation.
I don't mind if the text appears flat or 3D, it just has to be positioned in 3D space. I would prefer to render the text in the highest quality possible without sacrificing too much speed, since readability of the text is the most important part of the application. Also, nearly all of the strings are different, there aren't many duplicates.
So, my question: Am I going down the right path with drawing the strings on the textures, and if so, how can I overcome those 2 problems? Or is there another method that would suit my needs?
Depending on exactly how TextRenderer works - you might be able to use display lists to batch up your text drawing commands.
If TextRenderer works by having a texture of individual character glyphs and piecing together a string a glyph at a time: it'll be fine. just bookend your text drawing code with glNewList and glEndList. Once a list is defined, just use glCallList to use it.
If however, TextRenderer works by drawing complete strings into a texture and using one quad per string - display lists may not work. If the strings in one batch do not all fit within TextRenderer's cache, it will delete the least-recently used one to reclaim some space. Display lists will only recreate the OpenGL calls made, and so the work done by TextRenderer to update the string cache texture will be lost and you'll get incorrect output. From a quick scan of the source, I suspect that TextRenderer works in this manner.
To summarise: Display lists will greatly speed up your rendering, but will only if you don't overflow TextRenderer's string cache texture and don't use the TextRenderer after the display list has been defined.
If you can't meet these constraints you're going to have to go a bit hardcore and write your own text renderer that renders glyph-by-glyph - it'll then be trivial to cache the output geometry and extremely quick to re-render. There's an example of such a system here, with the tool to create a font here. It uses LWJGL rather than JOGL, but the translation between the two will be the least of your worries if you want to integrate it - it's meshed with the texture management etc.
Hey, I'm currently trying to extract information from a 3d array, where each entry represents a coordinate in order to draw something out of it. The problem is that the array is ridiculously large (and there are several of them) meaning I can't actually draw all of it.
What I'm trying to accomplish then, is just to draw a representation of the outside coordinates, a shell of the array if you'd like. This array is not full, can have large empty spaces with only a few pixels set, or have large clusters of pixel data grouped together. I do not know what kind of shape to expect (could be a simple cube, or a complex concave mesh), and am struggling to come up with an algorithm to effectively extract the border. This array effectively stores a set of points in a 3d space.
I thought of creating 6 2d meshes (one for each side of the 3d array), and getting the shallowest point they can find for each position, and then drawing them separetly. As I said however, this 3d shape could be concave, which creates problems with this approach. Imagine a cone with a circle on top (said circle bigger than the cone's base). While the top and side meshes would get the correct depth info out of the shape, the bottom mesh would connect the base to the circle through vertical lines, making me effectivelly loose the conical shape.
Then I thought of annalysing the array slice by slice, and creating 2 meshes from the slice data. I believe this should work for any type of shape, however I'm struggling to find an algorithm which accuratly gives me the border info for each slice. Once again, if you just try to create height maps from the slices, you will run into problems if they have any concavities. I also throught of some sort of edge tracking algorithm, but the array does not provide continuous data, and there is almost certainly not a continuous edge along each slice.
I tried looking into volume rendering, as used in medical imaging and such, as it deals with similar problems to the one I have, but couldn't really find anything that I could use.
If anyone has any experience with this sort of problem, or any valuable input, could you please point me in the right direction.
P.S. I would prefer to get a closed representation of the shell, thus my earlier 2d mesh approach. However, an approach that simply gives me the shell points, without any connection between them, that would still be extremely helpful.
Thank you,
Ze
I would start by reviewing your data structure. As you observed, the array does not maintain any obvious spatial relationships between points. An octree is a pretty good representation for data like you described. Depending upon the complexity of you point set, you may be able to find the crust using just the octree - assuming you have some connectivity between near points.
Alternatively, you may then turn to more rigorous algorithms like raycasting or marching cubes.
Guess, it's a bit late by now to be truly useful to you, but for reference I'd say this is a perfect scenario for volumetric modeling (as you guessed yourself). As long as you know the bounding box of your point cloud, you can map these coordinates to a voxel space and increase the density (value) of each voxel for each data point. Once you have your volume fully defined, you can then use the Marching cubes algorithm to produce a 3D surface mesh for a given threshold value (iso value). That resulting surface doesn't need to be continuous, but will wrap all voxels with values > isovalue inside. The 2D equivalent are heatmaps... You can refine the surface quality by adjusting the iso threshold (higher means tighter) and voxel resolution.
Since you're using Java, you might like to take a look at my toxiclibs volumeutils library, which also comes with sevaral examples (for Processing) showing the general approach...
Imagine a cone with a circle on top
(said circle bigger than the cone's
base). While the top and side meshes
would get the correct depth info out
of the shape, the bottom mesh would
connect the base to the circle through
vertical lines, making me effectivelly
loose the conical shape.
Even an example as simple as this would be impossible to reconstruct manually, let alone algorithmically. The possibility of your data representing a cylinder with a cone shaped hole is as likely as the vertices representing a cone with a disk attached to the top.
I do not know what kind of shape to
expect (could be a simple cube...
Again, without further information on how the data was generated, 8 vertices arranged in the form of a cube might as well represent 2 crossed squares. If you knew that the data was generated by, for example, a rotating 3d scanner of some sort then that would at least be a start.
I've been writing a Java program that aides in cutting and working with sprites, such as CSS sprites. The main idea is that the image is segmented into subregions, so the software understands the "spritesheet" is composed of multiple sprites.
The algorithm I developed works by scanning horizontal (x) and vertical (y) axes for breaks, based on transparency/color mask. This doesn't detect each subpart, but applying it recursively may. The 1D axes are transformed into rectangles of where parts are in the image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_segmentation
The Wikipedia article (above) has information on many different techniques. One important thing is that I'm not doing recognition, such as detecting foreground objects. Technically using the color mask is separation of a background and foreground though.
You're right. You are technically doing foreground extraction, despite having very little background to extract from. I would suggest taking a look at Connected Component Regions this, IMO will assist you in extracting nonuniform regions that are well connected.
I looked at the Wikipedia page, most of those techniques are based on attempting to segment the image on either:
"Interesting regions" i.e. mahalobis distance, or color distance (these are not the same distance measures)
By models
Pattern recognition
It is image segmentation, but not a general purpose one. Using a mask limits its purpose depending on the kind of mask you're applying, but if you're interested only in a specific type of image structure, it's quite ok, I'd call it domain-specific image segmentation.