Thread: Update screenie with billboards

I've looked at several billboarding source code snippets in books and the SDK and all of them use the view matrix or D3DXMatrixRotationY(). Either way they are still multiplying.

My final project will have the matrix billboard stored in the camera class. The Billboard class will then simply retrieve the billboard matrix, alter members ._41,._42, and ._43 for translation of the billboard, sort the billboards from back to front, cull the unneeded billboards, and draw all billboards in the scene with their current texture.

Keep in mind the math will only be done once per frame, not once per billboard.

This can be done also with animated billboards. Animation comes from an animation controller class that simply tracks a timer (another class) and when the current timer is up for the frame, it switches texture pointers to the next one in the list. The actual billboard or sprite does not carry the animation data, the class carries a pointer to the animation controller class. In this way all animations are separate from the sprites. So all that needs to be done is to render the sprite, billboard, or what have you with the correct texture and the correct time based on frame_time.

Also, this is how most graphics apis actually rotate the scene...they simply rotate the coordinate system by using a matrix, but then the verticies are just specified in terms of the unit vectors...big speed boost.

Suspicious at best. I suppose you could scale your model vertices every frame to get the desired size or you could create the model with the desired size. Either way you still cannot render the final model w/o doing something to it. I do not store the model's as unit vectors so that I do not have to scale them every time I want to use them. My coordinate system is rotated by matrices in the camera class and quite frankly I have no idea how you would call this a speed boost since this is what has to be done to get the desired results.

I know how D3D rotates the scene and yes it is by using matrices, which from my source code you can see I'm using matrices too. Where do you think the view matrix came from?

All that has to be done in each of my classes is this:

1. Rotate the object in model space.
2. Translate the object in world space
3. Rotate the object in world space, if need be.

Code:

...
void Object::Render(float frame_time)
{
  //Model rotation
  D3DXMATRIX mrot;
  D3DXMatrixRotation(&mrot,Rotation.x,Rotation.y,Rotation.z);
 
  //World rotation if needed?
 
  //Translate
  mrot._41=Position.x;
  mrot._42=Position.y;
  mrot._43=Position.z;
 
  Device->SetTransform(D3DTS_WORLD,&mrot);
 
  ..Render
}

I wish I could get rid of the Transform portion because switching transforms in D3D is costly, but the only other way would be to take the view matrix and step down one level to the world matrix, alter the correct members and multiply with model's rotate matrix and then render.

This can be accompished with a matrix stack but I haven't implemented it yet.

Well then it at least serves for another way of doing things.
I should admit the speed issue is questionable, but what I am sure of is that my method is easier to comprehend at an intuitive level.

Also, because of the concept I showed for accomplishing this task (which I know works), it might actually help to show how matrix mathematics works...a matrix is sort of an operator that 'operates' on another matrix (a vector is a special case of a matrix). I understand these topics:

The math involved is very clever and you will probably have to tweak it to find out why it works. The concept is this:

1. Transpose the view matrix
2. Take the upper left 3x3 block from the transposed matrix and use that as a rotation matrix.
3. Combine this matrix with your rotation, translation (position), and scaling matrices.
4. The quad will always face the camera.

but I think my way is essentially easier and works just as well (although ultimately matrices have so many interesting properties and my way is just a specific way of accomplishing this task)

Originally Posted by Bubba

So you want me to use your method because it's easier - intuitively. Ummm.....lemme think.................NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I would not attempt a 3D engine if I did not understand matrix math and matrix concatenation. I've programmed all of this before in pure software under DJGPP including rasterization but thankfully now I don't have to.

I thought you were actually catching a flaw in my billboard system and instead I find you are only trying to be right not helpful.

I'm willing to listen to anyone on the board about suggestions they may have. But, in the future, if you do not have a faster algorithm or if you are only posting just to waste my time and bs with me about theory, please refrain from posting.

Please don't talk to me as though I do not understand 3D mathematics or how my own core engine works. I'm not trying to be mean but we posted about 10 posts that eventually came down to the fact that you did NOT have a faster method.

Let me put it this way. I don't care who invented the algo, where it comes from, or if it is original. All I care about is SPEED, pure SPEED. If your algo is not faster, I have no reason to change mine.

Code:

but I think my way is essentially easier and works just as well (although ultimately matrices have so many interesting properties and my way is just a specific way of accomplishing this task)

And what are you trying to say. I am using matrices to accomplish this. I'm altering several matrices to fit what I need. I'm really lost as to what you are even saying.

No need to be harsh, and if you do count the number of operations mine does have fewer.

No need to be harsh, and if you do count the number of operations mine does have fewer.

I should admit the speed issue is questionable, but what I am sure of is that my method is easier to comprehend at an intuitive level.

Which is it? Is it faster, or do you just think its faster?

I'm not being harsh, I'm being realistic. There are several threads you have responded to that are simply inaccurate as far as 3D math is concerned. Ray to triangle and all of those intersections are not as intensive as you claim nor are some of the other and so right now I'm sort of suspicious.

Check it out, I am 100% accurate with everything I have said, I think you just don't know the algorithm I am speaking of.

You count the speed of an operation by the additions and multiplications it induces, and mine induces less than yours if you go through and count them.

EDIT:
ah hah! I realize the confusion:

I should admit the speed issue is questionable, but what I am sure of is that my method is easier to comprehend at an intuitive level.

I most certainly did not mean questionable, I honestly meant (and was thinking) trivial!!!!!

trivial != questionable

You did not explain your method thoroughly enough for me to even use it, and besides I'm already storing the vectors in the camera class. The billboard system simply retrieves the matrix and uses it for all billboards in the system - given that they even need to be displayed.

Anyways updated screenie with some very early starfield shots. Probably will alter this to look better later, but altering the graphics is easy. The system works fine.

The fuzziness around the stars is a sad result of having to convert the picture to jpg format.

Also the backdrop is no longer active. I'm working on making it a skybox instead of a sphere.

Honestly i think if you are putting in more planets that it will look perfect without a skybox.

IMO the pure black just represents the great void of space. Maybe im not just visualizing it well enough but i think that last ss is the best.

Wonderful work.

Also, would it be difficult to decrease the size of the atmosphere. I would like to see what it looks like with the atmosphere slightly smaller.

Note: I am not trying to "correct" you, im just curious.

Originally Posted by Vicious

Also, would it be difficult to decrease the size of the atmosphere. I would like to see what it looks like with the atmosphere slightly smaller.

Yep, I agree the atmosphere should be smaller.