I have detailed, highly irregular shapes like these:
and I'm looking for a way to make them cover a rectangle area with no holes and minimal blend/cover between shapes. Limited up-scaling and free rotation is also allowed.
I searched through packaging and covering algorithms but there is not a lot of information about irregular shapes and every one I looked at assumes shapes cannot blend. In my case this is acceptable.
Given above shapes one solution would look something like this:
To achieve above result shapes have been transalted, rotated and scaled.
Given:
All shapes can be scaled up and down (max 2x) and rotated
Shapes can overlap
Part of shape can be outside of rectangle
Shapes don't have holes in them
Do you know an algo that could solve this?
Related
I have a situation where I have a set of pixels that make up the border of a quadrilateral (very close to square). I'm trying to determine the location of the corners as best as possible and have been struggling for a while now. My first thought was to determine the straight lines of the border and then calculate the corner points, but I don't have access to OpenCV or other image processing libraries, unfortunately.
Below are three cases where the black outline is the image boundary and the red outline is the quadrilateral boundary. I have a list of all of the pixels that make up the red boundary and the red boundary thickness may vary.
My initial thought was that I could just find the pixel that is closest to each of the four image boundaries, however this won't quite work for the first case where the inner quadrilateral isn't tilted.
Any thoughts on how to tackle this problem would be great. I'm coding in dart, but am looking for a psuedocode answer that I can implement myself.
(I have seen this post, which is similar to my problem, but I think there should be a simpler solution for my problem since I have access to all of the boundary points of the quadrilateral)
Having a list of all rectangle boundary pixels, you can use simple methods like this:
Calculate gravity center of rectangle (just sum X- and Y- coordinates of pixels and divide by their number) - it is diagonal intersection.
Find the farthest pixels - they are corners.
In case of bad quality of data set (empty places, excessive pixels) center calculation might be inexact. So you can apply Hough transform to extract sides (as lines) and calculate their intersections.
I try to create a scene for physical simulation. The scene consists of rectangular floes floating in a rectangular pond. Something like this:
So I need to fill a rectangular area with non-intersecting rotated rectangles with widths and heights in a specified range. I don't need to find an optimal coverage of the area. The goal is just to generate floes of different size without intersections.
And I'd like to get a solution without any dynamics, only using collision detection algorithms.
You could consider simulating a collection of boxes falling into a square bucket and saving the positions of all the boxes once they come to rest.
box2d is an open source 2D physics library that can do this for you - you might recognise it as the physics engine behind Angry Birds and umpteen-million Flash games.
There is what I would do:
Suppose the length of the rectangles are between [MaxSize MinSize]
r <- MaxSize
do{
Trying adding non-intersecting circles to the area with radius r and random center (x,y). We use circle instead of rectangle because intersection detecting for circles are easier than rectangles. e.g. if distance(x,y,x',y')<r+r' then we are good.
If adding circle failed{
r--;
if r< MinSize break;
}
}
Now you will have a plane full of on intersecting squares. There will be gaps because we were using circles as intersection detection. If this is not good enough for you, grow the squares to rectangles. You can do this by checking all points against a certain border and decide how much you can grow it.
To model solid (ie non-intersecting) objects, you could use a physics engine. As it happens I just the other day read Farseer tutorial for the absolute beginners, which includes a video depicting almost exactly your requirement. Farseer is a .NET version of box2d, which you may have heard of.
Could you point me to an effective algorithm for rendering and filling the curves used in TTF fonts? I have the data loaded as contours of points so I;m only wondering about an effective way of drawing the curves. I'd also very much like it to support smoothing.
What I know up to this point:
TTF uses bezier curves and splines
TTF categorizes it's points as points defining lines, and points defining curve, the latter being either on the curve in question or our of it (control points)
One can make a polygon out of a curve contour where the curved parts are made of lines the size of a pixel.
One could use this polygon to render the filled contour and if one also uses the data as floats rather than ints, one could achieve font smoothing.
So could you point me to a guide of some sort or something?
Thanks.
If you already have the vector data, then you have to rasterize it with some scanline fill algorithm. For smoothing divide the pixels into n by n blocks, rasterize the characters and compute the a gray value corresponding to the number of filled subpixels. Handling bezier curves and splines, however, is not going to be easy, I think. If it is possible, I would use a library like freetype or similar.
I am interested in using shapes like these:
Usually a tangram is made of 7 shapes(5 triangles, 1 square and 1 parallelogram).
What I want to do is fill a shape only with tangram shapes, so at this point,
the size and repetition of shapes shouldn't matter.
Here's something I manually tried:
I am a bit lost on how to approach this.
Assuming I have a path (an ordered list/array of points of the outline),
I imagine I should try to do some sort of triangulation.
Is there such a thing as Deulanay triangulation with triangles constrained to 45 degrees
right angled triangles ?
A more 'brute' approach would be to add a bunch of triangles(45 degrees) and use SAT
for collision detection to 'fix' overlaps, and hopefully gaps will be avoided.
Since the square and parallelogram can be made of triangles(45 degrees) too, I imagine there
would be a nice clean geometric solution, right ?
How do I pack triangles(45 degrees) inside an arbitrary shape ?
Any ideas are welcome.
A few random thoughts (maybe they help you find a better solution) if you're using only the original sizes of the shapes:
as you point out, all shapes in the tangram can be made composed of e.g. the yellow or pink triangle (d-g-c), so try also thinking of a bottom-up approach such as first trying to place as many yellow triangles into your shape and then combine them into larger shapes if possible. In the worst case, you'll end up with a set of these smallest triangles.
any kind triangulation of non-polygons (such as the half-moon in your example) probably does not work very well...
It looks like you require that the shapes can only have a few discrete orientations. To find the best fit of these triangles into the given shape, I'd propose the following approximate solution: draw a grid of triangles (i.e. a square grid with diagonal lines) across the shape and take those triangles which are fully contained. This most likely will not give you the optimal coverage but then you could repeatedly shift the grid by a tenth of the grid size in horizontal and vertical direction and see whether you'll find something which covers a larger fraction of the original shape (or you could go in steps of 1/2 then 1/4 etc. of the original grid size in the spirit of a binary search).
If you allow any arbitrary scaling of the shapes you could approximate any (reasonably smooth ?) shape to arbitrary precision by adding smaller and smaller shapes. E.g. if you have a raster image, you can e.g. choose the size of the yellow triangle such that two of them make a pixel on the image and then you can represent any such raster image.
Starting with a 3D mesh, how would you give a rounded appearance to the edges and corners between the polygons of that mesh?
Without wishing to discourage other approaches, here's how I'm currently approaching the problem:
Given the mesh for a regular polyhedron, I can give the mesh's edges a rounded appearance by scaling each polygon along its plane and connecting the edges using cylinder segments such that each cylinder is tangent to each polygon where it meets that polygon.
Here's an example involving a cube:
Here's the cube after scaling its polygons:
Here's the cube after connecting the polygons' edges using cylinders:
What I'm having trouble with is figuring out how to deal with the corners between polygons, especially in cases where more than three edges meet at each corner. I'd also like an algorithm that works for all closed polyhedra instead of just those that are regular.
I post this as an answer because I can't put images into comments.
Sattle point
Here's an image of two brothers camping:
They placed their simple tents right beside each other in the middle of a steep walley (that's one bad place for tents, but thats not the point), so one end of each tent points upwards. At the point where the four squares meet you have a sattle point. The two edges on top of each tent can be rounded normally as well as the two downward edges. But at the sattle point you have different curvature in both directions and therefore its not possible to use a sphere. This rules out Svante's solution.
Selfintersection
The following image shows some 3D polygons if viewed from the side. Its some sharp thing with a hole drilled into it from the other side. The left image shows it before, the right after rounding.
.
The mass thats get removed from the sharp edge containts the end of the drill hole.
There is someething else to see here. The drill holes sides might be very large polygons (lets say it's not a hole but a slit). Still you only get small radii at the top. you can't just scale your polygons, you have to take into account the neighboring polygon.
Convexity
You say you're only removing mass, this is only true if your geometry is convex. Look at the image you posted. But now assume that the viewer is inside the volume. The radii turn away from you and therefore add mass.
NURBS
I'm not a nurbs specialist my self. But the constraints would look something like this:
The corners of the nurbs patch must be at the same position as the corners of the scaled-down polygons. The normal vectors of the nurb surface at the corners must be equal to the normal of the polygon. This should be sufficent to gurarantee that the nurb edge will be a straight line following the polygon edge. The normals also ensure that no visible edges will result at the border between polygon and nurbs patch.
I'd just do the math myself. nurbs are just polygons. You'll have some unknown coefficients and your constraints. This gives you a system of equations (often linear) that you can solve.
Is there any upper bound on the number of faces, that meet at that corner?
You might you might employ concepts from CAGD, especially Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS) might be of interest for you.
Your current approach - glueing some fixed geometrical primitives might be too inflexible to solve the problem. NURBS require some mathematical work to get used to, but might be more suitable for your needs.
Extrapolating your cylinder-edge approach, the corners should be spheres, resp. sphere segments, that have the same radius as the cylinders meeting there and the centre at the intersection of the cylinders' axes.
Here we have a single C++ header for generating triangulated rounded 3D boxes. The code is in C++ but also easy to transplant to other coding languages. Also it's easy to be modified for other primitives like quads.
https://github.com/nepluno/RoundCornerBox
As #Raymond suggests, I also think that the nepluno repo provides a very good implementation to solve this issue; efficient and simple.
To complete his answer, I just wrote a solution to this issue in JS, based on the BabylonJS 3D engine. This solution can be found here, and can be quite easily replaced by another 3D engine:
https://playground.babylonjs.com/#AY7B23