Implicit function to distance function

category: general [glöplog]
It's all a fancy way of saying, "ah, Fibonacci numbers".
added on the 2008-09-10 16:25:35 by doomdoom doomdoom
BTW, this is probably kind of obvious, but i never saw it.
For calculating the gradiend vector is only necessary evaluate 4x the distance function instead of 6x.

Code:float3 grad(float x,float y,float z){ const float n_er=0.001; /* //cube way 6x float3 n=float3( v(x+n_er,y,z)-v(x-n_er,y,z), v(x,y+n_er,z)-v(x,y-n_er,z), v(x,y,z+n_er)-v(x,y,z-n_er)); return n; */ //tetrahedron way 4x float v1=v(x+n_er,y-n_er,z-n_er); float v2=v(x-n_er,y-n_er,z+n_er); float v3=v(x-n_er,y+n_er,z-n_er); float v4=v(x+n_er,y+n_er,z+n_er); float3 n=float3( ((v4+v1)/2)-((v3+v2)/2), ((v3+v4)/2)-((v1+v2)/2), ((v2+v4)/2)-((v3+v1)/2)); return n; }
Is also necessary to divide by n_er*2, and normalize to obtain a normal.
sure. i usually center it at x,y,z and use a cube thou

float vo=v(x,y,z);
float vx=v(x+eps,y,z);
float vy=v(x,y+eps,z);
float vz=v(x,y,z+eps);

return normalize(vec3( vx-vo, vy-vo, vz-vo ));

Of course no need to divide by eps*2 cause you are gonna normalizing anyway.

Is the tetrahedron giving better results than the cube? Better sampling or something?
added on the 2008-09-23 08:50:14 by iq iq
(replace "eps*2" by "eps")
added on the 2008-09-23 08:53:56 by iq iq
No, tetrahedron gives probably less accurate results, because instead of a direct evaluation is used an average of two points. But in practice using a very small eps the cube way using 6 evaluations, or your cube way using 4, or the tetrahedron way give the same results.
Raycasting with distance function it's just wonderful :)
The possibilities are endless, I'm feeling like an explorer discovering new worlds in 3d graphics :)
I use HLSL and RenderMonkey to create stuff in real-time.
Right now i create an object rotating a 2d distance function. And it works 100% beautiful :)
To do this it is just necessary to deform space using this function:


A torus it's just a rotated circle :)
Actually papers about sphere tracing, have a formula for calculating the distance function to a torus
( (r1-sqrt(x^2+y^2))^2+z^2-r2^2 ) that is less acurate than this method.
Because Lipschitz const is 2 instead of one.

Also it is possible to do a lot of tweaks to create some really interesting objects ;)
Whats really cool is that now we are moving back to software rendering there are much fewer limitations - who knows where all this will go? The effects should be amazing.
added on the 2008-10-06 18:16:21 by auld auld