I have a folder with several thousand meshes in .stl format and I'm trying to search the mesh files for the ones that contain a specific feature. The size of the features I'm searching for is fairly consistent between models but the orientation and location is widely variable.
These files were originally made for 3d-printing so if the feature I'm looking for has a cavity then it might be obscured by support columns that are placed in the .stl file itself.
So I guess the question is this: Is there an algorithm for finding a given triangle arrangement or something close to it in a triangle mesh without knowing its orientation or location? Possibly when it might be obscured?
(The features in question are mostly alignment related e.g. specially shaped indents in the model that are used to line up the parts for a multi-part print, some models have shaped cutout holes that extend through the model for alignment purposes. )
Related
The H3 library uses a Dymaxion orientation, which means that the hexagon grid is rotated to an unusual angle relative to the equator/meridian lines. This makes sense when modelling the Earth, as the twelve pentagons then all lie in the water, but would be unnecessary when using the library to map other spheres (like the sky or other planets). In this case it would be more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing to align the icosahedron to put a pentagon at the poles and along the meridian. I'm just trying to work out what I would need to change in the library to achieve that? It looks like I would need to recalculate the faceCenterGeo and faceCenterPoint tables in faceijk.c, but do I need to recalculate faceAxesAzRadsCII as well? I don't really understand what that latter table is...
Per this related answer, the main changes you'd need for other planets are to change the radius of the sphere (only necessary if you want to calculate distances or areas) and, as you ask, the orientation of the icosahedron. For the latter:
faceCenterGeo defines the icosahedron orientation in lat/lng points
faceCenterPoint is a table derived from faceCenterGeo that defines the center of each face as 3d coords on a unit sphere. You could create your own derivation using generateFaceCenterPoint.c
faceAxesAzRadsCII is a table derived from faceCenterGeo that defines the angle from each face center to each of its three vertices. This does not have a generation script, and TBH I don't know how it was originally generated. It's used in the core algorithms translating between grid coordinates and geo coordinates, however, so you'd definitely need to update it.
I'd strongly suggest that taking this approach is a Bad Idea:
It's a fair amount of work - not (just) the calculations, but recompiling the code, maintaining a fork, possibly writing bindings in other languages for your fork, etc.
You'd break most tests involving geo input or output, so you'd be flying blind as to whether your updated code is working as expected.
You wouldn't be able to take advantage of other projects built on H3, e.g. bindings for other languages and databases.
If you want to re-orient the geometry for H3, I'd suggest doing exactly that - apply a transform to the input geo coordinates you send to H3, and a reverse transform to the output geo coordinates you get from H3. This has a bunch of advantages over modifying the library code:
It's a lot easier
You could continue to use the maintained library
You could apply these transformations outside of the bindings, in the language of your choice
Your own code is well-separated from 3rd-party library code
There's probably a very small performance penalty to this approach, but in almost all cases that's a tiny price to pay compared to the difficulties you avoid.
I have an stl file of a cylinder and an stl file of a sphere.
I want to use these two stl files to produce a third that is an stl of a ball with a hole through it.
The cylinder (the hole) has the same length as the diameter of the sphere.
So how do I use meshlab to 'reduce' the ball by the contents of the cylinder and produce a new object?
MeshLab has some boolean operations under the "CSG Operation" filter, however this resamples the meshes, which is probably not what you want. It is also prone to crashing.
Suggested alternatives are:
atomiccompiler.com : web site that can do (among other things) boolean operations on uploaded STLs, and provide a new STL for download. No need to install software. Downside is it limits file sizes.
Blender : can handle complex boolean operations fairly reliably, and also handles colors correctly. Steep learning curve for new users.
OpenSCAD : nice programmatic CAD tool but sometimes crashes when given large STLs.
Given a set of 2d images that cover all dimensions of an object (e.g. a car and its roof/sides/front/read), how could I transform this into a 3d objdct?
Is there any libraries that could do this?
Thanks
These "2D images" are usually called "textures". You probably want a 3D library which allows you to specify a 3D model with bitmap textures. The library would depend on platform you are using, but start with looking at OpenGL!
OpenGL for PHP
OpenGL for Java
... etc.
I've heard of the program "Poser" doing this using heuristics for human forms, but otherwise I don't believe this is actually theoretically possible. You are asking to construct volumetric data from flat data (inferring the third dimension.)
I think you'd have to make a ton of assumptions about your geometry, and even then, you'd only really have a shell of the object. If you did this well, you'd have a contiguous surface representing the boundary of the object - not a volumetric object itself.
What you can do, like Tomas suggested, is slap these 2d images onto something. However, you still will need to construct a triangle mesh surface, and actually do all the modeling, for this to present a 3D surface.
I hope this helps.
What there is currently that can do anything close to what you are asking for automagically is extremely proprietary. No libraries, but there are some products.
This core issue is matching corresponding points in the images and being able to say, this spot in image A is this spot in image B, and they both match this spot in image C, etc.
There are three ways to go about this, manually matching (you have the photos and have to use your own brain to find the corresponding points), coded targets, and texture matching.
PhotoModeller, www.photomodeller.com, $1,145.00US, supports manual matching and coded targets. You print out a bunch of images, attach them to your object, shoot your photos, and the software finds the targets in each picture and creates a 3D object based on those points.
PhotoModeller Scanner, $2,595.00US, adds texture matching. Tiny bits of the the images are compared to see if they represent the same source area.
Both PhotoModeller products depend on shooting the images with a calibrated camera where you use a consistent focal length for every shot and you got through a calibration process to map the lens distortion of the camera.
If you can do manual matching, the Match Photo feature of Google SketchUp may do the job, and SketchUp is free. If you can shoot new photos, you can add your own targets like colored sticker dots to the object to help you generate contours.
If your images are drawings, like profile, plan view, etc. PhotoModeller will not help you, but SketchUp may be just the tool you need. You will have to build up each part manually because you will have to supply the intelligence to recognize which lines and points correspond from drawing to drawing.
I hope this helps.
I have a lot of polygons. Ideally, all the polygons must not overlap one other, but they can be located adjacent to one another.
But practically, I would have to allow for slight polygon overlap ( defined by a certain tolerance) because all these polygons are obtained from user hand drawing input, which is not as machine-precised as I want them to be.
My question is, is there any software library components that:
Allows one to input a range of polygons
Check if the polygons are overlapped more than a prespecified tolerance
If yes, then stop, or else, continue
Create mesh in terms of coordinates and elements for the polygons by grouping common vertex and edges together?
More importantly, link back the mesh edges to the original polygon(s)'s edge?
Or is there anyone tackle this issue before?
This issue is a daily "bread" of GIS applications - this is what is exactly done there. We also learned that at a GIS course. Look into GIS systems how they address this issue. E.g. ArcGIS define so called topology rules and has some functions to check if the edited features are topologically correct. See http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=Topology_rules
This is pretty long, only because the question is so big. I've tried to group my comments based on your bullet points.
Components to draw polygons
My guess is that you'll have limited success without providing more information - a component to draw polygons will be very much coupled to the language and UI paradigm you are using for the rest of your project, ie. code for a web component will look very different to a native component.
Perhaps an alternative is to separate this element of the process out from the rest of what you're trying to do. There are some absolutely fantastic pre-existing editors that you can use to create 2d and 3d polygons.
Inkscape is an example of a vector graphics editor that makes it easy to enter 2d polygons, and has the advantage of producing output SVG, which is reasonably easy to parse.
In three dimensions Blender is an open source editor that can be used to produce arbitrary geometries that can be exported to a number of formats.
If you can use a google-maps API (possibly in an native HTML rendering control), and you are interested in adding spatial points on a map overlay, you may be interested in related click-to-draw polygon question on stackoverflow. From past experience, other map APIs like OpenLayers support similar approaches.
Check whether polygons are overlapped
Thomas T made the point in his answer, that there are families of related predicates that can be used to address this and related queries. If you are literally just looking for overlaps and other set theoretic operations (union, intersection, set difference) in two dimensions you can use the General Polygon Clipper
You may also need to consider the slightly more generic problem when two polygons that don't overlap or share a vertex when they should. You can use a Minkowski sum to dilate (enlarge) two and three dimensional polygons to avoid such problems. The Computational Geometry Algorithms Library has robust implementations of these algorithms.
I think that it's more likely that you are really looking for a piece of software that can perform vertex welding, Christer Ericson's book Real-time Collision Detection includes extensive and very readable description of the basics in this field, and also on related issues of edge snapping, crack detection, T-junctions and more. However, even though code snippets are included for that book, I know of no ready made library that addresses these problems, in particular, no complete implementation is given for anything beyond basic vertex welding.
Obviously all 3D packages (blender, maya, max, rhino) all include built in software and tools to solve this problem.
Group polygons based on vertices
From past experience, this turned out to be one of the most time consuming parts of developing software to solve problems in this area. It requires reasonable understanding of graph theory and algorithms to traverse boundaries. It is worth relying upon a solid geometry or graph library to do the heavy lifting for you. In the past I've had success with igraph.
Link the updated polygons back to the originals.
Again, from past experience, this is just a case of careful bookkeeping, and some very careful design of your mesh classes up-front. I'd like to give more advice, but even after spending a big chunk of the last six months on this, I'm still struggling to find a "nice" way to do this.
Other Comments
If you're interacting with users, I would strongly recommend avoiding this issue where possible by using an editor that "snaps", rounding all user entered points onto a grid. This will hopefully significantly reduce the amount of work that you have to do.
Yes, you can use OGR. It has python bindings. Specifically, the Geometry class has an Intersects method. I don't fully understand what you want in points 4 and 5.
I am looking for a solution to do the following:
( the focus of my question is step 2. )
a picture of a house including the front yard
extract information from the picture like the dimensions and location of the house, trees, sidewalk, and car. Also, the textures and colors of the house, cars, trees, and sidewalk.
use extracted information to generate a model
How can I extract that information?
You could also consult Tatiana Jaworska research on this. As I understood, this details at least 1 new algorithm to feature extraction (targeted at roofs, doors, ...) by colour (RGB). More intriguing, the last publication also uses parameterized objects to be identified in the house images... that must might be a really good starting point for what you're trying to do.
link to her publications:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w518j70542780r34/
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1578785
http://www.ibspan.waw.pl/~jaworska/TJ_BOS2010.pdf
Yes. You can extract these information from a picture.
1. You just identify these objects in a picture using some detection algorithms.
2. Measure these objects dimensions and generate a model using extracted information.
well actually your desired goal is not so easy to achieve. First of all you'll need a good way to figure what what is what and what is where on your image. And there simply is no easy "algorithm" for detecting houses/cars/whatsoever on an image. There are ways to segment different objects (like cars) from an image, but those don't work generally. Especially on houses this would be hard since each house looks different and it's hard to find one solid measurement for "this is house and this is not"...
Am I assuming it right that you are trying to simply photograph a house (with front yard) and build a texturized 3D-model out of it? This is not going to work since you need several photos of the house to get positions of walls/corners and everything in 3D space (There are approaches that try a mesh reconstruction with one image only but they lack of depth information and results are fairly poor). So if you would like to create 3D-mdoels you will need several photos of different angles of the house.
There are several different approaches that use this kind of technique to reconstruct real world objects to triangle-meshes.
Basically they work after the principle:
Try to find points in images of different viewpoint which are the same on an object. Considering you are photographing a house this could be salient structures likes corners of windows/doors or corners or edges on the walls/roof/...
Knowing where one and the same point of your house is in several different photos and knowing the position of the camera of both photos you can reconstruct this point in 3D-space.
Doing this for a lot of equal points will "empower" you to reconstruct the shape of your house as a 3D-model by triangulating the points.
Taking parts of the image as textures and mapping them on the generated model would work as well since you know where what is.
You should have a look at these papers:
http://www.graphicon.ru/1999/3D%20Reconstruction/Valiev.pdf
http://people.csail.mit.edu/wojciech/pubs/LabeledRec.pdf
http://people.csail.mit.edu/sparis/publi/2006/oceans/Paris_06_3D_Reconstruction.ppt
The second paper even has an example of doing exactly what you try to achieve, namely reconstruct a textured 3D-model of a house photographed from different angles.
The third link is a powerpoint presentation that shows how the reconstruction works and shows the drawbacks there are.
So you should get familiar with these papers to see what problems you are up to... If you then want to try this on your own have a look at OpenCV. This library provides some methods for feature extraction in images. You then can try to find salient points in each image and try to match them.
Good luck on your project... If you have problems, please keep asking!
I suggest to look at this blog
https://jwork.org/main/node/35
that shows how to identify certain features on images using a convolutional neural network. This particular blog discusses how to identify human faces on images from a large set of random images. You can adjust this example to train neural network using some other images. Note that even in the case of human faces, the identification rate is about 85%, therefore, more complex objects can be even harder to identify