3D Graphics in Turing

[Shamusodoofus]

I'm wondering if it is possible to animate a 3D image in Turing...I know it is impossible using the turing code that is already given to me since Turing cannot handle 3D graphics. However I'm wondering if there is any other alternative to this. Any help would be much appreciated.

[petree08]

look up raycasting algorythms , i'm still trying to code my own 3d engine using the raycasting algorthym .it is a pretty basic way of doing 3d,
raycasting is good for getting a first person shooter or 3d maze thing going, I'm pretty sure sniperdude made an amazing fps in the turing section a while ago using that meathod . (someone correct me if i'm wrong.) anyway there is a 3d tutorial in the turing section, i myself am not quite at 3d (i have some psudeo stuff but nothing impresive) the tutorials should help.

happy coding

[darkangel]

This was posted here a while back, NOT MINE, i take no credit in this program. All credit goes to original author...whose name escapes my mind.

Thou this should help you acomplish your goal.
This is raycasting by the way, which is not actually 3d, but ends up giving the illusion of it. Plus any computer now-a-days can run it just fine with no lag. Even in turing.

EDIT: Petree I think your right, this might be sniperdude's

[isaiahk9]

Turing can handle 3D graphics, although it means ridiculous amounts of math.
As for animating something 3D, are you looking for something along the longs of the F10 Turing help topic : Sprite.Animate Run the first example program, and you will see a 3D looking skeleton walk.
And a cheap way of making a "animation" in turing is just running (drawing pictures of) several frames of something 3D.

[Vertico]

It isn't a question of can Turing control 3D elements, its a question of why would you want to?

[Insectoid]

Darkangel, isn't all coded 3D just an illusion of 3D, as the third dimension doe snot exist on the 2D plane of a computer monitor? So no 3D algorithm is actually 3D, just an illusion.

[Dan]

insectoid @ 30th October 2008, 12:42 pm wrote:

Darkangel, isn't all coded 3D just an illusion of 3D, as the third dimension doe snot exist on the 2D plane of a computer monitor? So no 3D algorithm is actually 3D, just an illusion.

Acuatly most advaced 3D engeions do do all the math and algorthims in 3D and the project it on to a 2D plane so it is a 3D projection.

Also if we are purely talking about the dsiplay mediume (ie the screen) there are display system witch can display objects in 3D space (or at least produce light to a viewers eyes in such a way that the data is interpeted as 3D by the viewers brain). Lakehead university has a very cool VR Lab witch uses 3 very large and ver expersive projectors on a big curved screen covering about 1/2 the room witch when combined with some 3D gogles can project a image in to the center of the room in 3D (or at least seem to).


@Shamusodoofus there have been 3D engions made in turing that can take a true 3D model (noraml in raw format) and display them (even with lighting in some cases), however as far as i know the animation capablitys have been limited to just moving and rotating the object. Theses engions where also rather slow and it would be hard to make games with complex objects in them.

A more realstic soultion, if you have to use turing, is ray casting witch petree08 brought up. I have seen some very cool games in turing that used ray casting and where resonably fast. The problem however is that you will likey spend more time working on the system for drawing/displaying 3D or 3D looking objects then you will aucatly making your game or program. If you are still intrested i could try to look up some of the old 3D examples for turing.

[CodeMonkey2000]

If you want to make a 3D game in turing, raycasting is your best bet. Though it's not actually 3D, the world is still handled with a 2D matrix. You can't have complex world structures, but rather simple maze like levels. And you can't use a 3rd person view, it has to be 1st person. It's very limiting as to what kind of game you want to make.

There are a few 3D games here, but most programs here just load and allow you to view a 3D model. Turing isn't exactly the best language to do 3D.

@darkangel that was my engine.

[SNIPERDUDE]

Actually Darkangel and Petree, that one isn't mine. That was created by someone else before I even learned raycasting.

[S_Grimm]

If you can learn somthing else, and don't have to use turing, i recommend C++ i did some work in it a while a go (about 2 years) and it had some pretty good 3d capabilities. I think that microsofts (ugh) visual C++ is probably one of the best for 3d. feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, and there is something better/easier to use.

And Sniperdude:

Quote:

CodeMonkey2000 RE:3D Graphics in Turing
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:59 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to make a 3D game in turing, raycasting is your best bet. Though it's not actually 3D, the world is still handled with a 2D matrix. You can't have complex world structures, but rather simple maze like levels. And you can't use a 3rd person view, it has to be 1st person. It's very limiting as to what kind of game you want to make.

There are a few 3D games here, but most programs here just load and allow you to view a 3D model. Turing isn't exactly the best language to do 3D.

@darkangel that was my engine.

And Dan, i believe that we are talking about regular (or sorta regular) people that do not have very expensive projecting systems thast can create 3d images (Though i would love to have one....), but just have regular computer moniters (or TV sets used as computer moniters) (or simple data projectors used as computer moniters) (or crazy people that run 3 moniters.) (or people that run 3 different satalite computers and a main computer on different moniters.) anyway...............

Before we moved on to java, my class tried 3d in turing. we found that it was too much work and too little gain. (plus the teacher didn't know enough of turing to be any help.) I sill recomend C++.

[Dan]

A\V @ 1st November 2008, 10:00 am wrote:

If you can learn somthing else, and don't have to use turing, i recommend C++ i did some work in it a while a go (about 2 years) and it had some pretty good 3d capabilities. I think that microsofts (ugh) visual C++ is probably one of the best for 3d. feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, and there is something better/easier to use.

I don't see why Visual C++ whould be any better then any other C++ complier or any other langue that has bindings for OpenGL. Most langues don't have 3D engiones bulit in and you need to get the APIs/Libaries/bindings for them such as OpenGL.

Quote:

And Dan, i believe that we are talking about regular (or sorta regular) people that do not have very expensive projecting systems thast can create 3d images (Though i would love to have one....), but just have regular computer moniters (or TV sets used as computer moniters) (or simple data projectors used as computer moniters) (or crazy people that run 3 moniters.) (or people that run 3 different satalite computers and a main computer on different moniters.) anyway...............

My point was that it is still a 3D projection to a 2D plane, wether you are using a montior or some very cool 3D projector the basic math is the same (not couting the algortims to split the image for each eye and such).

[S_Grimm]

Quote:

I don't see why Visual C++ whould be any better then any other C++ complier or any other langue that has bindings for OpenGL. Most langues don't have 3D engiones bulit in and you need to get the APIs/Libaries/bindings for them such as OpenGL.

I was just saying that i found visual C++ to be a little easier for 3d, compared to bloodshed C++. but that may just be me.....

And i belive the algorithims for making a projection iside a room are a little different then the algorithims for a moniter........... but that is splitting hairs. they are probably not very different at all.

[[Gandalf]]

A\V @ 2008-11-01, 6:54 pm wrote:

I was just saying that i found visual C++ to be a little easier for 3d, compared to bloodshed C++. but that may just be me.....

And what did you find easier with one compiler than the other?

[Dan]

Gandalf @ 1st November 2008, 7:59 pm wrote:

A\V @ 2008-11-01, 6:54 pm wrote:

I was just saying that i found visual C++ to be a little easier for 3d, compared to bloodshed C++. but that may just be me.....

And what did you find easier with one compiler than the other?

I would be intrested as well. Tho technicaly they are IDEs witch happen to come with diffrent compliers by default. I would think that if you are using the same 3D API like OpenGL and programming langue like C++ the devloperment should be about the same across VC++ and Dev C++ and the code should be almost exctaly the same.

AV wrote:

And i belive the algorithims for making a projection iside a room are a little different then the algorithims for a moniter........... but that is splitting hairs. they are probably not very different at all.

Admilty i was not paying as much atation as i should when we covered this in class (as it was not going to be on the exam), however my understanding is the projection on to the 3D plane is the same the diffrence is that they used a type of stereoscopy techicany to get two images. Basicly two carams a set distance apart and simualr angales to the humman eyes.

[CodeMonkey2000]

To get back on topic, if you want to do "real" 3D you need to read up on vectors, projections, rotational matricies, and a whole lot of math. It's not easy, and it's very theoretical.

@Dan: Is it similar to the wii head tracking but with two inputs & outputs?