CODEWITHSUNDEEP
iosobjective-copengl-esopengl-es-2.0glkit
Sean Clark Hess
Sean Clark Hess

Reputation: 16059

OpenGL draw multiple isometric cubes

I'm trying to draw multiple cubes at an isometric camera angle. Here's the code that draws one. (OpenGL ES 2.0 with GLKit on iOS). 

float startZ = -4.0f;

// position
GLKMatrix4 modelViewMatrix = GLKMatrix4Identity;    
modelViewMatrix = GLKMatrix4Translate(modelViewMatrix, location.x, location.y, location.z + startZ);

// isometric camera angle
modelViewMatrix = GLKMatrix4Rotate(modelViewMatrix, GLKMathDegreesToRadians(45), 1.0, 0, 0);
modelViewMatrix = GLKMatrix4Rotate(modelViewMatrix, GLKMathDegreesToRadians(45), 0.0, 1.0, 0);

self.effect.transform.modelviewMatrix = modelViewMatrix;

[self.effect prepareToDraw];
glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 36);

The problem is that it is translating first, then rotating, which means with more than one box, they do not line up (they look like a chain of diamonds. Each one is in position and rotated so the corners overlap).

Cubes

I've tried switching the order so the rotation is before the translation, but they don't show up at all. My vertex array is bound to a unit cube centered around the origin.

I really don't understand how to control the camera separate from the object. I screwed around with the projection matrix for a while without getting it. As far as I understand, the camera is supposed to be controlled with the modelViewMatrix, right? (The "View" part).

Upvotes: 0

Views: 1552

Answers (2)

Sean Clark Hess
Sean Clark Hess

Reputation: 16059

For reference, here's an article that helped me understand it. It's a little mathy, but does a good job explaining things intuitively.

http://db-in.com/blog/2011/04/cameras-on-opengl-es-2-x/

I ended up keeping the perspective projection, because I don't want true isometric. The key was to do them in the right order, because moving the camera is the inverse of moving the object. See the comments, and the article. Working code:

// the one you want to happen first is multiplied LAST
// camRotate * camScale * camTranslate * objTranslate * objScale * objRotate;

// TODO cache the camera matrix
// the camera angle remains the same for all objects
GLKMatrix4 camRotate = GLKMatrix4MakeRotation(GLKMathDegreesToRadians(45), 1, 0, 0);
camRotate = GLKMatrix4Rotate(camRotate, GLKMathDegreesToRadians(45), 0, 1, 0);
GLKMatrix4 camTranslate = GLKMatrix4MakeTranslation(4, -5, -4.0);
GLKMatrix4 objTranslate = GLKMatrix4MakeTranslation(location.x, location.y, location.z);

GLKMatrix4 modelViewMatrix = GLKMatrix4Multiply(camRotate, camTranslate);
modelViewMatrix = GLKMatrix4Multiply(modelViewMatrix, objTranslate);

self.effect.transform.modelviewMatrix = modelViewMatrix;

[self.effect prepareToDraw];
glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 36);

Upvotes: 0

jhabbott
jhabbott

Reputation: 19291

Your 'camera' transform (modelview) seems correct, however it looks like you're using a perspective projection - if you want isometric you will need to change your projection matrix.

It looks like you are applying the camera rotation to each object as you draw it. Instead, simulate a 2-deep matrix stack if your use-case is this simple, so you just have your camera matrix and each cube's matrix.

  1. Set your projection and camera matrices - keep a reference to your camera matrix.
  2. For each cube generate the individual cube transformation matrix (which should probably consist of translation only - no rotation so the cubes remain axis aligned - I think this is what you're going for).
  3. Backwards-multiply your cube matrix by the camera matrix and use that as the modelview matrix.

Note that the camera matrix will remain unchanged for each cube you render, but the modelview matrix will incorporate both the cube's individual transformation matrix and the camera matrix into a single modelview matrix. This is equivalent to the old matrix stack methods glPushMatrix and glPopMatrix (not available in GLES 2.0). If you need more complex object hierarchies (where the cubes have child-objects in their 'local' coordinate space) then you should probably implement your own full matrix stack, instead of the 2-deep equivalent discussed above.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions