How to adapt optixTrace considering previous intersections


I’m visualising volumetric data thanks to a point query method, where I launch “secondary” rays along a primary ray to intersect a geometry and then return the values accumulated along the primary ray. Here is how I generate those secondary rays in the raygen program :

extern "C" __global__ void __raygen__rg()
 float3 originPrimaryRay      = rtData->cam_eye;
 const float3 direction   = normalize( d.x * U + d.y * V + W );

    for (float i = 0.f; i < 10.f; i+=0.05f ) {

        float3 origin = originPrimaryRay + direction*i;

        trace( params.handle,
            0.00f,  // tmin
            1e-16f,  // tmax
            &payload_rgb );    

But this method is costly as it computes secondary rays for each ray, even when there’s no geometry.
To save computation time, I bounded my geometry with partitions using a kd tree. The idea is that I want to launch secondary rays, only if I’m inside a boundary box/partition. I have tessellated the partitions into triangles.

To find the entry and exit points of the ray in some partition I need to trace rays against the partition geometry. First with back-face culling enabled to find the entry point, then from the entry point with front-face culling enabled to find exit point. The t range along the ray between t-enter and t-exit is thus the range to integrate the volume over to sample the partition (ie where we launch the secondary rays).

However I have no idea about how to properly implemente this idea (I’m a beginner in OptiX and only coded some basic stuff close to the sphere sample of the SDK).

white dot: secondary ray

Let’s take a step back. You want to visualize volumetric data but talk about cases where rays are not hitting any geometry.
In your image, are the black triangles the geometry which contains volumetric data, like a material with volume absorption and scattering coefficients, volumetric emission etc. or are the orange bounding boxes of your kD-tree enclosing volumetric data outside and inside that triangle mesh, like a participating media?
Is there additional geometry inside your scene which is not the volumetric data?

If the triangle mesh is the boundary between volumes, meaning the outside is a different medium (e.g. vacuum) than the inside of the closed mesh (e.g. fog, smoke, milk), then there wouldn’t be a need to build other bounding boxes around that because the ray tracer would directly hit the mesh itself and could march along the ray after entering that volume and stop once leaving it again.
The idea with the front and back face culling should work for that, unless there are intersecting volume boundaries but that would be an incorrect scene setup for such an algorithm.

If the volumetric data is actually represented with some bounding boxes which define spaces with volume data inside where empty space can quickly be skipped by not having any bounding boxes for volume parts without any scattering medium information, you could simply build an acceleration structure where these bounding boxes are built of triangles (12 per box) and the same algorithm as for the mesh as boundary between two surfaces would apply.
Care would need to be taken to no miss adjacent boxes, like in your image where the middle ray goes from the left-most orange box into the right-most orange box. Make sure you do not miss the entry of the right-most box.

Let’s assume all triangle geometry is properly wound, world coordinate space is right-handed, front face is counter-clockwise triangle winding. Then you can either use the built-in triangle face culling or the face normal (float3 unnormalized_face_normal = cross(v1 - v0, v2 - v0);) of a hit to determine on which side of the triangle your ray hit.

You get that information inside the closest hit program of your primary ray, store that entering point resp. entering intersection distance on your payload and return to the ray generation.
Then you could either determine the exit point resp. exit intersection distance by shooting the same primary ray with front face culling enabled and an interval from the entering point as ray.origin resp. distance as ray.tmin or you could also simply start marching with small increasing ray intervals along the ray from the volume entry point until you hit the back-face of the entered volume geometry.

I would recommend the first option because that limits the ray [tmin, tmax] interval to the entered volume range which should be faster than using a huge ray.tmax during a ray marching, if that is required at all (see below).

If there is no other geometry inside the scene than the volume data itself, there wouldn’t actually be any need to trace any additional rays to calculate the transmittance. Instead you would just need to calculate the volume sample points along the found entry and exit points distance and accumulate the volume data.

If the volume is homogeneous there wouldn’t be a need to step though the volume either. The transmittance could be calculated directly from the extinction coefficient and the distance between entry and exit points
If the volume is heterogeneous, then you would march along the ray until you reach the back-face.

If the volume is heterogeneous there would also be methods to not step with a fixed value (your 0.05f) but step according to the density of the volume (with larger steps when thinner and smaller steps when thicker) which could reduce the number of steps and potentially reduce some aliasing effects when using fixed stepping sizes. Then there are advanced methods like residual delta tracking which can improve transmittance calculations.

Let’s assume there is only volume data in the scene, then the pseudo algorithm could look like this:

extern "C" __global__ void __raygen__volume()
 // Calculate primary ray orgin and direction here
 float3 origin    = launchParams.cam_eye;
 float3 direction = normalize(launchParams.camU * d.x + 
                              launchParams.camV * d.y + 

  // This code block needs to be inside a loop which advances the the ray orgin or tmin value to the next AABB entry point until both rays miss.

  float distanceMin = -1.0f; // Front face intersection distance, stays negative when missed.
  float distanceMax = -1.0f; // Back  face intersection distance, stays negative when missed.

  // Shoot primary ray with back face culling enabled.
  unsigned int payload = __float_as_uint(distanceMin);
             origin, direction, // origin, direction
             0.0f, RT_DEFAULT_MAX, 0.0f, // tmin, tmax, time
             OptixVisibilityMask(0xFF), OPTIX_RAY_FLAG_CULL_BACK_FACING_TRIANGLES,
  distanceMin = __uint_as_float(payload);

  // Shoot primary ray with front face culling enabled.
  payload = __float_as_uint(distanceMax);
             origin, direction, // origin, direction
             0.0f, RT_DEFUALT_MAX, 0.0f, // tmin, tmax, time
             OptixVisibilityMask(0xFF), OPTIX_RAY_FLAG_CULL_FRONT_FACING_TRIANGLES,
  distanceMax = __uint_as_float(payload);
  // There are four possible case here.
  if (0.0f < distanceMin && 0.0f < distanceMax)
    if (distanceMin < distanceMax)
      // The standard case: The ray started outside a volume and hit a front face and a back face farther away.
      // No special handling required. Use the two distance values as begin and end of the ray marching.
    else // if distanceMin >= distanceMax
      // This means a backface was hit before a father away front face.
      // In that case the ray origin must be inside a volume.
      distanceMin = 0.0f;
  else  if (distanceMin < 0.0f && distanceMax < 0.0f)
    // Both rays missed, nothing to do here, fill per output buffer with default default data and return.
  else if (distanceMin < 0.0f && 0.0f < distanceMax)
    // Primary ray origin is inside some volume. 
    distanceMin = 0.0f; // Start ray march from origin.
  else // if (0.0f < distanceMin && distanceMax < 0.0f)
    // Illegal case. Front face hit but back face missed
    // This would mean there is no end to the volume and the ray marching would be until world end.
    // Maybe tint the result in some debug color to see if this happens.
  float3 result = make_float3(0.0f);
  for (float distance = distanceMin; distance < distanceMax; distance += STEP_DISTANCE)
    // Calculate world position of the volume sample point.
    const float3 position = origin + direction * distance;
    // Somehow calculate the 3D volume data element (e.g. a 3D texture coordinate in normalized range [0.0f, 1.0f]^3
    const float3 sample = getVolumeSampleCoordinate(position);
    // Read some volume data from the sample position.
    const float3 data = some_volume_data_lookup(sample);
    // Accumulate to the result you need.
    result += some_operation(data); 
  // Write the per launch index result to your output buffer.

There is no need for a miss program when initializing the distance values with the case indicating a miss (negative intersection distance).

The closest hit program would need to return the intersection distance (optixGetRayTmax()) inside the single payload register.

If you actually need to shoot marching rays to be able to hit other geometry, the above for-loop would need to do something like this:

  for (float distance = distanceMin; distance < distanceMax; distance += STEP_DISTANCE)
    payload = __float_as_uint(-1.0f);
               origin, direction, // origin, direction
               distance, distance + STEP_DISTANCE, 0.0f, // tmin, tmax, time
               OptixVisibilityMask(0xFF), OPTIX_RAY_FLAG_NONE,
    const float distanceHit = __uint_as_float(payload);
    if (0.0f < distanceHit)
      // Hit someting else than volume boundary between the volume entry and exit points.
      // Nothing in the way, accumulate along volume step as usual.

Note that I used a different ray type, which is probably not required, because that could be handled in one closest-hit program by adding another payload value which would switch the behavior when needed, or more when additional data needs to be returned.

There could also be different traversable handles used for volume boundaries and other triangle meshes in the scene. It really depends on what exactly you need how the scene and programs can be implemented.

If there are more complex algorithms required (volume scattering with random walk is not running along a single direction) there is a simple random walk volume algorithm implemented in the MDL_renderer raygeneration program. This is not really beginner stuff. If you’re not familiar with OptiX, look at all OptiX SDK examples first and then the “intro” examples in above repository.

1 Like


First of all thanks for your reply, and sorry for the lack of precision.

In my image, the black triangles represent tetrahedrons in 2d. The goal of the secondary rays is to sample these tetrahedrons by interpolating the values contained in their vertices, and then give the interpolation result to a transfer function which will output the final value for a secondary ray.

The orange bounding boxes are the leaves of a kd tree. They serve two goals:
-Help to identify where some geometry is contained so I can start to sample (launch secondary rays) in a range given by the tmin and tmax.
-give a rough estimation of the physical values of the geometry inside, so I can decide to adapt the sampling, or even skip it (like if there was no geometry inside).

To advance to the next partition we set the ray’s tmin to texit −ε. We apply a small offset back by ε to allow for intersection with potentially coplanar partition boundary faces. From this new start point we then find the ray’s entry and exit points with the next partition as before.

The ray-triangle intersection tests are really fast on RTX boards and the BVH traversal is also running in hardware.
If your volume representation consists of tetrahedrons, I would simply try using that data directly.
The bounding volume hierarchy of the acceleration structure on top of that is already handling finding the required primitives directly.
If you’re able to find the entry and exit points of a tetrahedron, the interpolation of its per vertex values for marching doesn’t require any additional rays.
You might not even need to do that inside OptiX device code. If you use OptiX for finding all these tetrahedron entry and exit points along with the tetrahedron primitive index, everything else could also be calculated inside native CUDA kernels, which offer some more flexibility about how to use data, e.g. shared memory which is not possible to use inside the OptiX.

Using an epsilon offset is problematic with coplanar surfaces.
Read this thread, esp. my last post in there:

Maybe also check these posts which discussed tetrahedrons in the past:

The bounding boxes are really needed since they can allow me to skip space (when the geometry is transparent according to the transfer function), or adapt the sampling. I’m implementing this paper if it can help :
Efficient Space Skipping and Adaptive Sampling of Unstructured Volumes
Using Hardware Accelerated Ray Tracing”, paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 precisely.

But indeed for skipping parts where there’s no geometry at all I don’t have to use the bounding boxes and use your solution.

It would have saved quite some time if you had said that in the beginning.

I basically explained different methods of how to approach that, of which one is described inside the paper already. That should all be rather straightforward to implement.
The two rays with front- and back-face culling method I mentioned is a robust solution to handle coplanar faces of the disjunct bounding boxes.

If you’re not knowing how to implement that with OptiX, yet, you’d need to work through the OptiX Programming Guide and API Reference, the OptiX SDK examples and the additional examples you find inside the sticky posts of this sub-forum.

Apoligizes, I was trying to make it clearer…
Indeed the code you gave me replies perfectly to my question for the device side.

I also wanted your advices concerning how to build the AS.
Do you think I should go for:
.2 GAS (one for the tesselated boxes, one for the actual geometry, ie tetrahedrons in this example), with no IAS.
.1 IAS refering to the 2 GAS.
.Or one GAS with 2 input builds (since the input type are both triangles).

Thanks again for your time.

If finding the entry and exit points of the bounding boxes is a separate step which only needs to happen on the bounding box geometry itself and none of that geometry is required for the actual ray marching over the volumetric data enclosed by the tetrahedrons, then it absolutely makes sense to have two separate acceleration structures.

The smaller the AS and the fewer overlaps of AABBs, the faster the ray traversal through the AS.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.