.NET高级图形库

Question

I am programming various simulation tools in C#/.NET

What I am looking for is a high level visualization library; create a scene, with a camera with some standard controls, and render a few hunderd thousand spheres to it, or some wireframes. That kind of thing. If it takes more than one line to initialize a context, it deviates from my ideal.

Ive looked at slimDX, but its way lower level than im looking for (at least the documented parts, but I dont really care for any other). WPF perspective looked cool, but it seems targeted at static XAML defined scenes, and that doesnt really suit me either.

Basically, im looking for the kind of features languages like blitzbasic used to provide. Does that exist at all?

Answer 1

Maybe the XNA Game studio is what you are looking for.

Also take a look at DirectX .

Answer 2

WPF perspective looked cool, but it seems targeted at static XAML defined scenes

Look again, WPF can be as dynamic as you will ever need.

You can write any WPF program, including 3D, totally without XAML.

Answer 3

I'm also interested in this (as I'm also developing simulation tools) and ended up hacking together some stuff in XNA. It's definitely a lot more work than you've described, however. Note that anything you can do in WPF via XAML can also be done via code, as XAML is merely a representation of an object hierarchy and its relationships. I think that may be your best bet, though I don't have any metrics on what kind of performance you could expect with a few hundred thousand spheres (you're absolutely going to need some culling in that case and the culling itself may be expensive if you don't use optimizations like grid partitioning.)

---

EDIT: If you really need to support 100K entities and they can all be rendered as spheres, I would recommend that you bypass the 3d engine entirely and only use XNA for math. I would imagine an approach like the following:

• Use XNA to set up Camera (View) and Perspective matrices. It has some handy Matrix static functions that make this easy.

• Compute the Projection matrix and project all of your 'sphere' origin points to the viewing frustrum. This will give you X,Y screen coordinates and Z depth in the frustrum. You can either express this as 100K individual matrix multiplications or multiplication of the Projection matrix by a single 3 x 100K element matrix. In the former case, this is a great candidate for parallelism using the new .NET 4 Parallel functionality.

• If you find that the 100K matrix multplications are a problem, you can reduce this significantly by performing culling of points before transformation if you know that only a small subset of them will be visible at a given time. For instance, you can invert the Projection matrix to find the bounds of your frustrum in your original space and create an axis-aligned bounding box for the frustrum. You can then exclude all points outside this box (simple comparison tests in X, Y and Z.) You only need to recompute this bounding box when the Projection matrix changes, so if it changes infrequently, this can be a reasonable optimization.

• Once you have your transformed points, clip any outside the frustum (Z < 0, Z > maxDist, X<0, Y<0, X>width, Y>height). You can now render each point by drawing a filled circle, with its radius proportional to Z (Z=0 would have largest radius and Z=maxDist would probably fade to a single point.) If you want to provide a sense of shading/depth, you can render with a shaded brush to very loosely emulate lighting on spheres. This works because everything in your scene is a sphere and you're presumably not worried about things like shadows. All of this would be fairly easy to do in WPF (including the Shaded Brush), but be sure to use DrawingVisual classes and not framework elements. Also, you'll need to make sure you draw in the correct Z order, so it helps if you store the transformed points in a data structure that sorts as you add.

• If you're still having performance problems, there are further optimizations you can pursue. For instance, if you know that only a subset of your points are moving, you can cache the transformed locations for the immobile points. It really depends on the nature of your data set and how it evolves.

• Since your data set is so large, you might consider changing the way you visualize it. Instead of rendering 100K points, partition your working space into a volumetric grid and record the number (density) of points inside each grid cube. You can Project only the center of the grid and render it as a 'sphere' with some additional feedback (like color, opacity or brush texture) to indicate the point density. You can combine this technique with the traditional rendering approach, by rendering near points as 'spheres' and far points as 'cluster' objects with some brush patterning to match the density. One simple algorithm is to consider a bounding sphere around the camera; all points inside the sphere will be transformed normally; beyond the sphere, you will only render using the density grid.

Answer 4

Do you have to use C#/.Net or would MonoDevelop be good enough? I can recomend http://unity3d.com/ if you want a powerful 3D-engine.