I mean to frame a ImageTarget using a FrameMarker, so that the FrameMarker serves as the border of the ImageTarget.

DavidBeard wrote:

Have you tried placing an ImageTarget within the FrameMarkers?

You should be able to detect both at once.

An ImageTarget with which Target ?

Have you tried placing an ImageTarget within the FrameMarkers?

You should be able to detect both at once.

Sorry to revive this old topic, instead of creating one for the same subject I considered about posting here.

I have the following problem:

I'm working on a AR Chess game and for every chess table box i've created a framemarker (64 in total). I would like to build the interaction, for that I've considered VirtualButtons attached to a piece.

The problem is already stated, VirtualButtons only works with Image Target, what should I do in this case ? I can't give up on FrameMarkers.

PS: I'm using Unity.

I think you should still be able to track 5. After sleeping on the problem and reading Kim's post, I think the best option if you want to integrate buttons without making them look like buttons would be to define a small area of the ImageTarget as the button...

It's hard to say how well it would work, especially considering the things Kim pointed out... but it may be worth a try if that's really what you're going for! I'm going to try store tracking information so the rendering will still occur (for a short time) even if the object has lost tracking. You might try the same thing if you don't want temporary occlusion of a virtual button to derez your rendered image.

--Kenner

Thanks for the replys,

I told about FrameMarker as buttons because I need a lot of them showing in one screen. (hopefully 10) I heard that the SDK can detect multiple FrameMarkers, but I'm not sure about the Image Targets.

How many Image Targets can the SDK track (and use them as virtual buttons) at once?

If I can use multiple(5~10) Image Targets as buttons, it will be perfect!

Virtual buttons are meant to be used with Image Targets. You need a target that can continue tracking while partially obscured, as happens when your hand comes in to trigger a virtual button. Frame markers are not robust in this way, the entire marker needs to be detected for tracking to work.

Using a virtual button that fills an entire Image Target might not work as expected. The biggest problem I see here is that you will have to occlude most of the image target to trigger the button, losing tracking on that target. If you place a frame marker around that image target / button combo, you will most likely occlude part of the frame marker while triggering the button. In this situation, there's nothing left to track off of.

You could play around with image target / button combos placed next to the frame marker, but not inside. At a certain point it seems that just using image targets is simpler and cleaner, however.

- Kim

Hmm I'm envisioning some problems with this approach... but you may be able to find a work around. The developer guide states that virtual buttons are for use with ImageTargets... but I suppose if you had an image target/button combo and put the frame marker code around the edges, you could do what you're talking about.

Another possible solution if you're willing to not use frame markers would be to define an ImageTarget and virtual button to be the same thing. That way when you covered any part of the ImageTarget you would be occluding the button as well. I'll test this sometime this weekend and see if my theory works. :)

Is there any particular reason you want to use a FrameMarker over an ImageTarget?

--Kenner