The first was implementing a texture blending technique that was described here: http://www.nongnu.org/techne/research/blending/blending.pdf , I'll write some more about that at a later stage but it was fun to do and works amazingly well.
The second was that trees and vegetation were going to be needed at some point in time. Now I could simply import models of trees and other things but I wanted to find out if it would be possible to generate these and do this in a way that would allow me to create multi LOD meshes for the same tree. Searching the web you find a lot of neat tools and small tutorials.
Most seem to favour a technique called L-System fractals. Google on that term if you wish but it is basically a way to notationally describe a fractal system that can be used to generate a tree (and many other things). However there is a lot of trial and error involved and the more complex and fully grown a tree becomes, the more roadblocks your seem to hit.
Eventually, buried deep down in the search results someone mentioned a technique called "Space Colonization" which I promptly ignored due to the name suggesting it had more to do with space combat games then procedurally generating vegetation. But after it came back a few times most notably on this amazingly cool blog I starting looking into it. Eventually it lead me to the the very well written paper called "Modeling Trees with a Space Colonization Algorithm" written by Adam Runions, Brendan Lane, and Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz.
I decided to try my hand at implementing it and see how far I'd get. It turned out to be very easy to do the basic generation of the tree. As I've not found many people showing how they've implemented the algorithm I decided to dedicate a few blog posts about it.
This first one is just about the node generation.
The next step will be to optimise the output merging branches, then we'll need to generate a model that will allow us to render the tree and finally I need to add in leaves and such.
Finally I need to add more algorithms for creating differently shaped point clouds or maybe even allow for drawing out the shape.
Not all necessarily in that order:)
Source code, Github and framework
I've uploaded and will be maintaining the project to my GitHub page. I'm working on a Macbook Pro at the moment so everything will only be tested on that platform for now. Obviously you'll need XCode but as I'm using makefiles (I'm a little old fashioned) you'll also need to install the command line tools and possible make (I can't remember, I set it all up years ago). Or off course you start a new project in your favourite IDE and just draw the source files in.As I'm using OpenGL and GLUT is pretty useless once you go beyond OpenGL 2 (on a Mac at least) I've started using GLFW and GLEW. The GitHub repository contains the header files and static universal libraries compiled for Mac OS X. I just added those to make it easier to duplicate the repository and get started but you'd do well to get the original source code and documentation for both. I won't waste any words here on setting up and compiling these (I might be tempted to do so at some point in time) as the documentation is pretty good.
Right now I've not added a math library but just added those classes and those methods I've needed so far. This may change as the project progresses.
OpenGL 1.0
At this stage the project is using OpenGL 1.0 and worse even, using glBegin/glEnd commands. This is simply done because I needed to test the algorithm and it is the quickest way to just output stuff to screen. It won't stay so for much longer though. I haven't decided yet but it is likely I'll use tessellation shaders only available in OpenGL 4 to generate the detail for the mesh. Also as my main engine runs OpenGL 3 code I'll eventually end up changing the code to using proper vertex arrays and buffers.Attraction Point Cloud
This is the heart of this algorithm. The basic idea behind the algorithm is that you have a cloud of points to which the tree grows. The shape of the point cloud very much dictates the overall look of the tree but inherent in the algorithm is the branching you would expect with vegetation.The code I currently use to test the algorithm isn't very imaginative in the cloud it creates, I simply randomly generate positions of points within a hemisphere and stretch that to roughly represent the shape of a tree. How its stretched and how the points are organised can be set with parameters to the method that generates the point cloud. The samples in the aforementioned paper use much better algorithms producing better shapes and I plan to enhance this eventually and take it even further then the paper suggests.
Note that for this reason also the sample code animates the algorithm, this algorithm works very well visually to see how it works and see how changes to the parameters effect the outcome. When you use it for real obviously you'd just run the algorithm and work with the finished mesh.
The code to generate the attraction points is very simple:
void treelogic::generateAttractionPoints(unsigned int pNumOfPoints, float pOuterRadius, float pInnerRadius, float pAspect, float pOffsetY, bool pClear) {
// Seed our randomiser
srand (time(NULL));
if (pClear) {
// Clear any existing points (shouldn't be any..)
mAttractionPoints.clear();
};
// Add random attraction points until we reached our goal
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < pNumOfPoints; i++) {
vec3 point;
// random normalized vector for half a hemisphere
point.x = randf();
point.y = randf(0.0f, 1.0f);
point.z = randf();
point = point.normalize();
// Scale it up to a random radius and stretch if needed
point *= ((pOuterRadius - pInnerRadius) * randf(0.0f, 1.0f)) + pInnerRadius;
point.y *= pAspect;
point.y += pOffsetY;
// and add it to our buffer
mAttractionPoints.push_back(attractionPoint(point));
};
};
You can call it a few times consecutively to create slightly more interesting clouds.
And it gives a point cloud like so:
Growing the tree
The magic happens in the iterative logic that grows the tree. Notice in the previous screenshot the brown line, that is the start of our tree. The idea is that you can start off with a basic shape to further control the end result. All the algorithm needs is at least one starting vertex at 0,0,0 which is taken care of in the constructor of the class.For every iteration we check each point in our attraction point cloud and check which vertex within our tree lies closest to that point. If the distance is within a certain threshold (dk in the paper, pMaxDistance in the code below) we take it into account, else we ignore the attraction point for now. In this manner we find all attraction points that are closest to each vertex of the tree (these are our sets). For each vertex of the tree we calculate the average normalised vectors to these points and then branch out in that direction by a specified distance (D in the paper, pBranchSize in the code beow).
Finally, any attraction point that is closer then a specified distance (di in the paper, pCutOffDistance in the code below) to its nearest vertex is discarded.
We repeat this process until all attraction points have been discarded.
The code for our iteration looks like this:
bool treelogic::doIteration(float pMaxDistance, float pBranchSize, float pCutOffDistance, vec3 pBias) {
unsigned int numVerts = mVertices.size(); // need to know the number of vertices at the start of our process
unsigned int i, v;
std::vector<float> numOfAPoints;
std::vector<vec3> directions;
// init our temporary buffers
for (v = 0; v < numVerts; v++) {
numOfAPoints.push_back(0.0);
directions.push_back(vec3(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f));
};
// find out what our closest vertice to each attraction points is:
i = 0;
while (i < mAttractionPoints.size()) { // use a while loop, we'll be removing points..
attractionPoint point = mAttractionPoints[i];
// start with our current distance for our attraction point
vec3 delta = mVertices[point.closestVertice] - point.position;
float currentDistance = delta.length();
// as our vertices haven't moved we only need to check any new vertices
for (v = mLastNumOfVerts; v < mVertices.size(); v++) {
delta = mVertices[v] - point.position;
float distance = delta.length();
if (distance < currentDistance) {
// this one is now our closest
point.closestVertice = v;
currentDistance = distance;
};
};
if (currentDistance < pCutOffDistance) {
// we're done with this one...
mAttractionPoints.erase(mAttractionPoints.begin() + i);
} else {
// copy back our new closest vertice and advance...
mAttractionPoints[i].closestVertice = point.closestVertice;
if (currentDistance < pMaxDistance) {
// count our vertice
numOfAPoints[point.closestVertice] += 1.0;
vec3 norm = mAttractionPoints[i].position - mVertices[point.closestVertice];
directions[point.closestVertice] += norm.normalize();
};
// and advance
i++;
};
};
// Update our last number of vertices
mLastNumOfVerts = numVerts;
// Now check which vertices need to branch out...
for (v = 0; v < numVerts; v++) {
if (numOfAPoints[v] > 0.0) {
vec3 vert = mVertices[v];
directions[v] /= numOfAPoints[v];
directions[v] = directions[v].normalize() * pBranchSize;
vert += directions[v] + pBias;
growBranch(v, vert);
};
};
// as long as we still have attraction points left we must still be growing our tree
return mAttractionPoints.size() > 0;
};
I've added a few optimisations into this code.
First of all is that I only check new vertices added since the last iteration and remember the closest vertex for the next round. As vertices once generated do not move only new vertices can be closer then the current closest vertex.
Second, instead of building a set of attraction points that are closest to a particular vertex I simply count the number of attraction points and add their normalised vectors together. Then once I'm finished I simply divide the sum of the vectors by the number of points to get the direction in which to grow my branch.
The end result is a nice stick figure tree:
It's a lot of fun experimenting with the parameters and seeing what different shapes to come up with. One of the things I added in the sample code is to generate a second point cloud after the tree has been build to create roots.
More next time....
No comments:
Post a Comment