1 / 25

Visibility Culling

Visibility Culling. David Luebke Computer Science Department University of Virginia <luebke@cs.virginia.edu>. Motivation. Like most other rendering acceleration techniques, the goal is to avoid rendering redundant geometry The basic idea: don’t render what can’t be seen

lynda
Download Presentation

Visibility Culling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visibility Culling David Luebke Computer Science Department University of Virginia <luebke@cs.virginia.edu>

  2. Motivation • Like most other rendering acceleration techniques, the goal is to avoid rendering redundant geometry • The basic idea: don’t render what can’t be seen • Off-screen: view-frustum culling • Occluded by other objects: occlusion culling

  3. Motivation • The obvious question: why bother? • Off-screen geometry: solved by clipping • Occluded geometry: solved by Z-buffer • The (obvious) answer: efficiency • Clipping and Z-buffering take time linear to the number of primitives

  4. The Goal • Our goal: quickly eliminate large portions of the scene which will not be visible in the final image • Not the exact visibility solution, but a quick-and-dirty conservative estimate of which primitives might be visible • Z-buffer& clip this for the exact solution • This conservative estimate is called the potentially visible set or PVS

  5. Visibility Culling • The remainder of this talk will cover: • View-frustum culling (briefly) • Occlusion culling in architectural environments • General occlusion culling

  6. View-Frustum Culling • An old idea (Clark 76): • Organize primitives into clumps • Before rendering the primitives in a clump, test a bounding volume against the view frustum • If the clump is entirely outside the view frustum, don’t render any of the primitives • If the clump intersects the view frustum, add to PVS and render normally

  7. Efficient View-Frustum Culling • How big should the clumps be? • Choose minimum size so:cost testing bounding volume << cost clipping primitives • Organize clumps into a hierarchy of bounding volumes for more efficient testing • If a clump is entirely outside or entirely inside view frustum, no need to test its children

  8. Efficient View-Frustum Culling • What shape should bounding volumes be? • Spheres and axis-aligned bounding boxes: simple to calculate, cheap to test • Oriented bounding boxesconverge asymptotically faster in theory • Lots of other volumes have been proposed • Capsules, ellipsoids, k-DOPs • …but most use spheres or AABBs.

  9. Cells & Portals • Goal: walk through architectural models (buildings, cities, catacombs) • These divide naturally into cells • Rooms, alcoves, corridors… • Transparent portalsconnect cells • Doorways, entrances, windows… • Notice: cells only see other cells through portals

  10. Cells & Portals • An example:

  11. Cells & Portals • Idea: • Cells form the basic unit of PVS • Create an adjacency graphof cells • Starting with cell containing eyepoint, traverse graph, rendering visible cells • A cell is only visible if it can be seen through a sequence of portals • So cell visibility reduces to testing portal sequences for a line of sight…

  12. Cells & Portals A D E F B C G H A E B C D F G H

  13. Cells & Portals A D E F B C G H A E B C D F G H

  14. Cells & Portals A D E F B C G H A E B C D F G H

  15. Cells & Portals A D E F B C G H A E B C D F G H

  16. Cells & Portals A D E F B C G H A E B C D F G H

  17. Cells & Portals A D E ? F B C G H A E B C D F G ? H

  18. Cells & Portals A D E X F B C G H A E B C D F G X H

  19. A D E F B C G H Cells & Portals • View-independent solution: find all cells a particular cell could possibly see: C can only see A, D, E, and H A D E H

  20. A D E F B C G H Cells & Portals • View-independent solution: find all cells a particular cell could possibly see: H will never see F A D E B C G

  21. Cells and Portals • Questions: • How can we detect whether a given cell is visible from a given viewpoint? • How can we detect view-independent visibility between cells? • The key insight: • These problems reduce to eye-portal and portal-portal visibility

  22. Cells and Portals • Airey (1990): view-independent only • Portal-portal visibility determined by ray-casting • Non-conservative portal-portal test resulted in occasional errors in PVS • Slow preprocess • Order-of-magnitude speedups

  23. Cells and Portals • Teller (1993): view-independent + view-dependent • Portal-portal visibility calculated by line stabbing using linear program • Cell-cell visibility stored in stab trees • View-dependent eye-portal visibility stage further refines PVS at run time • Slow preprocess • Elegant, exact scheme

  24. Cells and Portals • Luebke (1995): view-dependent only • Eye-portal visibility determined by intersecting portal cull boxes • No preprocess (integrate w/ modeling) • Quick, simple hack • Public-domain library: pfPortals

  25. pfPortals Algorithm • Depth-first adjacency graph traversal • Render cell containing viewer • Treat portals as special polygons • If portal is visible, render adjacent cell • But clip to boundaries of portal! • Recursively check portals in that cell against new clip boundaries (and render) • Each visible portal sequence amounts to a series of nested portal boundaries • Kept implicitly on recursion stack

More Related