In OSMnx sosme operations, eg graph simplification, only work once the graph is properly projected, while some work correctly in lat/long. I would like to do soomething like:
project graph
operate on projected graph (eg simplify)
"unproject" result
operate on result in original coordinates
How do I do the unproject step?
Related
I observed some applications create a geometric structure apparently by just having a set of touch points. Like this example:
I wonder which algorithms can possibly help me to recreate such geometric structures?
UPDATE
In 3D printing, sometimes a support structure is needed:
The need for support is due to collapse of some 3D object regions, i.e. overhangs, while printing. Support structure is supposed to connect overhangs either to print floor or to 3D object itself. The geometric structure shown in the screenshot above is actually a sample support structure.
I am not a specialist in that matter and I may be missing important issues. So here is what I would naively do.
The triangles having a external normal pointing downward will reveal the overhangs. When projected vertically and merged by common edges, they define polygonal regions of the base plane. You first have to build those projected polygons, find their intersections, and order the intersections by Z. (You might also want to consider the facing polygons to take the surface thickness into account).
Now for every intersection polygon, you draw verticals to the one just below. The projections of the verticals might be sampled from a regular grid or elsehow, to tune the density. You might also consider sampling those pillars from the basement continuously to the upper surface, possibly stopping some of them earlier.
The key ingredient in this procedure is a good polygon intersection algorithm.
Given a general polyline and an orthogonal grid, I would like to compute a simpler polyline whose vertices lie on the grid edges/vertices. This can look like this:
Left: A dense polyline as input, Right: A coarser polyline whose vertices lie on the intersection of the input polyline with the grid edges/vertices
(Sorry about the link to the image, but stack overflow apparently doesn't allow me to embed pictures before getting 10 credit points).
The grid is always orthogonal but its vertices do not necessarily have integer coordinates as some x or y lines might have coordinates defined by a previous geometric intersection computation. The initial curve can be represented as a polyline (though it would be nice to have also bezier curve support), not necessarily x-monotone, and it might intersect the grid also along whole edges.
My first thought was to call CGAL::compute_subcurves(..) with the grid lines and the curve I'm adding. I was hoping to get back a list of polylines, each composed of maximal multiple segments inside a face of the original grid. In practice even if the input is composed of polylines and the output of monotone polylines, I get back a list of separated segments. These include also the grid segments and also the polyline segments, and these are not ordered by "walking on the curve segments" as needed to compute the ordered interesection points. If they would have been ordered, a solution would be to iteratively go over them and check which one intersects the original grid, and then save the points.
Another option I thought of is to start with an arrangement of the grid lines, incrementally add polyline segements and have a notification mechanism notifying me on new edges that are pairwise disjoint in their interior, but in the case an edge of the intersected polylines is an original edge of the grid I won't get a notification and I'll miss it. Incrementally adding segments and checking for collisions also doesn't seem to be straightforward as the arrangement API do_intersect(..) seems to return at most a single point, while a given segment of the input polyline might easily intersect two grid lines next to a corner or even lie entirely on a grid segment.
I'm probably missing some simple solution. Can someone give me a pointer, or some api call that might help here?
Edit: There might have been a confusion. The grid is orthogonal but not necessarily regular and might have coordinates that could not globally scale to integers such as here.
Use Arrangement_with_history_2 (instead of Arrangement_2); see https://doc.cgal.org/latest/Arrangement_on_surface_2/classCGAL_1_1Arrangement__with__history__2.html. After you compute the arrangement, you can use point location to locate the end points of your polylines in the arrangement. Then, for each one, you can easily follow the original curve. If you are concerned with performance, you can try inserting (at least) the grid lines incrementally. Another option is to extend the halfedge records and insert the grid lines and each polyline separately. With the appropriate observer, you can mark the generated halfedges that correspond to a given polyline uniquely. I think you can even save the extra point location, by locating one of the two end points of a polyline before inserting it, and then provide the resulting location to the (incremental) insertion function.
I'm trying to take a static list of vertices and, using a matrix, bend them about a circle as shown in the image below. I can find the new vertices using basic geometry, but I'm unsure how to implement it with a matrix, or if it is even possible. I believe, calling the center of the circle 'C' and calling the distance from the vertex to C 'd', that x' = Cx + d*cos(theta) and y' = Cy + d*sin(theta). (Cx and Cy are components of C). However, I don't think that that, in itself, can be converted to a matrix.
The Transformation
For context, I'm making a 3D Snake game. The Snake is made up of segments, and each segment should connect to the next. I have a direction and position for each connection between the segments, so I figured that I could build the segment by connecting each part as shown. However, it would be inefficient to calculate the vertices for each segment on each frame. If I could have the vertices statically listed and then transform it in the model-world matrix, that would be faster, and fit into the method I'm currently using. I included a simple drawing of the Snake (ignore the head) below.
The Snake
If it's not possible, are there any alternatives that can be done using a matrix while giving a similar result?
Yes, it is possible.
Skeleton Animation:
You can actually add a series of bones to the object and just apply rotation to the bones equally to get a perfect curve. This is the easiest way to achieve this. However, not necessarily the fastest way for your case.
Just Matrix & Weights:
If the bending is always in this proportion, you have to add weight information to each vertex and then multiply with a matrix with transformation/rotation/scale combination. This will give you better performance compared to Skeleton animation, as every vertex is multiplied using only one matrix and there is no hierarchy.
Hie guys I'm working on an web app for feature extraction from an IGES(file format) CAD model. I have extracted and stored all the entities from the iges file e.g shell entity, face entity, loop, edges, and vertex entity. Also I managed to draw the model using three.js.
I followed the the algorithms in the document here until the point where we extract feature from the model itself. The document assumes that the edge between two faces is a line and so calculating the angles and edge concavity becomes easy:
The algorithm used is as follows:
In my case, however, the edge between the faces is a semi cylindrical in shape and this edge is detected by the app(I guess because of the entities in the iges file) as having 4 faces( the outer & inner faces and the faces on the sides). When I draw the wireframe model this is what is displayed:
I would like your help in finding the best algorithm to find the angles between two faces without using the edge face in the process just like in the first image( i.e as if the edge is just a line).
How do you calculate the edge direction( as stated in the above document)
THANK YOU.
Given two 3d objects, how can I find if one fits inside the second (and find the location of the object in the container).
The object should be translated and rotated to fit the container - but not modified otherwise.
Additional complications:
The same situation - but look for the best fit solution, even if it's not a proper match (minimize the volume of the object that doesn't fit in the container)
Support for elastic objects - find the best fit while minimizing the "distortion" in the objects
This is a pretty general question - and I don't expect a complete solution.
Any pointers to relevant papers \ articles \ libraries \ tools would be useful
Here is one perhaps less than ideal method.
You could try fixing the position (in 3D space) of 1 shape. Placing the other shape on top of that shape. Then create links that connect one point in shape to a point in the other shape. Then simulate what happens when the links are pulled equally tight. Causing the point that isn't fixed to rotate and translate until it's stable.
If the fit is loose enough, you could use only 3 links (the bare minimum number of links for 3D) and try every possible combination. However, for tighter fit fits, you'll need more links, perhaps enough to place them on every point of the shape with the least number of points. Which means you'll some method to determine how to place the links, which is not trivial.
This seems like quite hard problem. Probable approach is to have some heuristic to suggest transformation and than check is it good one. If transformation moves object only slightly out of interior (e.g. on one part) than make slightly adjust to transformation and test it. If object is 'lot' out (e.g. on same/all axis on both sides) than make new heuristic guess.
Just an general idea for a heuristic. Make a rasterisation of an objects with same pixel size. It can be octree of an object volume. Make connectivity graph between pixels. Check subgraph isomorphism between graphs. If there is a subgraph than that position is for a testing.
This approach also supports 90deg rotation(s).
Some tests can be done even on graphs. If all volume neighbours of a subgraph are in larger graph, than object is in.
In general this is 'refined' boundary box approach.
Another solution is to project equal number of points on both objects and do a least squares best fit on the point sets. The point sets probably will not be ordered the same so iterating between the least squares best fit and a reordering of points so that the points on both objects are close to same order. The equation development for this is a lot of algebra but not conceptually complicated.
Consider one polygon(triangle) in the target object. For this polygon, find the equivalent polygon in the other geometry (source), ie. the length of the sides, angle between the edges, area should all be the same. If there's just one match, find the rigid transform matrix, that alters the vertices that way : X' = M*X. Since X' AND X are known for all the points on the matched polygons, this should be doable with linear algebra.
If you want a one-one mapping between the vertices of the polygon, traverse the edges of the polygons in the same order, and make a lookup table that maps each vertex one one poly to a vertex in another. If you have a half edge data structure of your 3d object that'll simplify this process a great deal.
If you find more than one matching polygon, traverse the source polygon from both the points, and keep matching their neighbouring polygons with the target polygons. Continue until one of them breaks, after which you can do the same steps as the one-match version.
There're more serious solutions that're listed here, but I think the method above will work as well.
What a juicy problem !. As is typical in computational geometry this problem
can be very complicated with a mismatched geometric abstraction. With all kinds of if-else cases etc.
But pick the right abstraction and the solution becomes trivial with few sub-cases.
Compute the Distance Transform of your shapes and Voilà! Your solution is trivial.
Allow me to elaborate.
The distance map of a shape on a grid (pixels) encodes the distance of the closest point on the
shape's border to that pixel. It can be computed in both directions outwards or inwards into the shape.
In this problem, the outward distance map suffices.
Step 1: Compute the distance map of both shapes D_S1, D_S2
Step 2: Subtract the distance maps. Diff = D_S1-D_S2
Step 3: if Diff has only positive values. Then your shapes can be contained in each other(+ve => S1 bigger than S2 -ve => S2 bigger than S1)
If the Diff has both positive and negative values, the shapes intersect.
There you have it. Enjoy !