I'm trying to optimally fill a 3D spherical volume with "particles" (represented by 3D XYZ vectors) that need to maintain a specific distance from each other, while attempting to minimize the amount of free space present in-between them.
There's one catch though- The particles themselves may fall on the boundary of the spherical volume- they just can't exist outside of it. Ideally, I'd like to maximize the number of particles that fall on this boundary (which makes this a kind of spherical packing problem, I suppose) and then fill the rest of the volume inwards.
Are there any kinds of algorithms out there that can solve this sort of thing? It doesn't need to be exact, but the key here is that the density of the final solution needs to be reasonably accurate (+/- ~5% of a "perfect" solution).
There is not a single formula which fills a sphere optimally with n spheres. On this wikipedia page you can see the optimal configurations for n <= 12. For the optimal configurations for n <= 500 you can view this site. As you can see on these sites different numbers of spheres have different optimal symmetry groups.
your constraints are a bit vague so hard to say for sure but I would try field approach for this. First see:
Computational complexity and shape nesting
Path generation for non-intersecting disc movement on a plane
How to implement a constraint solver for 2-D geometry?
and sub-links where you can find some examples of this approach.
Now the algo:
place N particles randomly inside sphere
N should be safely low so it is smaller then your solution particles count.
start field simulation
so use your solution rules to create attractive and repulsive forces and drive your particles via Newton D'Alembert physics. Do not forget to add friction (so movement will stop after time) and sphere volume boundary.
stop when your particles stop moving
so if max(|particles_velocity|)<threshold stop.
now check if all particles are correctly placed
not breaking any of your rules. If yes then remember this placement as solution and try again from #1 with N+1 particles. If not stop and use last correct solution.
To speed this up you can add more particles instead of using (N+1) similarly to binary search (add 32 particles until you can ... then just 16 ... ). Also you do not need to use random locations in #1 for the other runs. you can let the other particles start positions where they were placed in last run solution.
How to determine accuracy of the solution is entirely different matter. As you did not provide exact rules then we can only guess. I would try to estimate ideal particle density and compute the ideal particle count based on sphere volume. You can use this also for the initial guess of N and then compare with the final N.
Related
For my simulation purposes, I want to generate a randomly distributed k number of spheres (having the same radii) in a confined 3D space (inside a rectangle) where k is in order of 1000. Those spheres should not impinge on one another.
So, I want to generate random k points in a 3D space at least d distance away from one another; considering the number of points and the frequency at which I need those points for simulation, I don't want to apply brute force; I'm looking for some efficient algorithms achieving this.
How about just starting with some regular tessellation of the space (i.e. some primitive 3d lattice) and putting a single point somewhere in each tile? You'd then only need to check a small number of neighboring tiles for proximity.
To get a more statistically uniform, i.e. less regular, set of points, you could:
perturb points in space
generate an overly dense lattice and reject some points
"warp" the space so that the lattice was more dense in certain areas
You could perturb the points sequentially, giving you a monte-carlo chain over their coordinates, and potentially saving work elsewhere. Presumably you could tailor this so that the equilibrium distribution was what you wanted.
I've an indeterminate number of closed CGPath elements of various shapes and sizes all containing a single concave bezier curve, like the red and blue shapes in the diagram below.
What is the simplest and most efficient method of dividing these shapes into n regions of (roughly) equal size?
What you want is Delaunay triangulation. Here is an example which resembles what you want to do. It uses an as3 library. Here is an iOS port, that should help you:
https://github.com/czgarrett/delaunay-ios
I don't really understand the context of what you want to achieve and what the constraints are. For instance, is there a hard requirement that the subdivided regions are equal size?
Often the solutions to a performance problem is not a faster algorithm but a different approach, usually one or more of the following:
Pre-compute the values, or compute as much as possible offline. Say by using another server API which is able to do the subdivision offline and cache the results for multiple clients. You could serve the post-computed result as a bitmap where each colour indexes into the table of values you want to display. Looking up the value would be a simple matter of indexing the pixel at the touch position.
Simplify or approximate a solution. Would a grid sub-division be accurate enough? At 500 x 6 = 3000 subdivisions, you only have about 51 square points for each region, that's a region of around 7x7 points. At that size the user isn't going to notice if the region is perfectly accurate. You may need to end up aggregating adjacent regions anyway due to touch resolution.
Progressive refinement. You often don't need to compute the entire algorithm up front. Very often algorithms run in discrete (often symmetrical) units, meaning you're often re-using the information from previous steps. You could compute just the first step up front, and then use a background thread to progressively fill in the rest of the detail. You could also defer final calculation until the the touch occurs. A delay of up to a second is still tolerable at that point, or in the worst case you can display an animation while the calculation is in progress.
You could use some hybrid approach, and possibly compute one or two levels using Delaunay triangulation, and then using a simple, fast triangular sub-division for two more levels.
Depending on the required accuracy, and if discreet samples are not required, the final levels could be approximated using a weighted average between the points of the triangle, i.e., if the touch is halfway between two points, pick the average value between them.
I'm working on a purely continuous physics engine, and I need to choose algorithms for broad and narrow phase collision detection. "Purely continuous" means I never do intersection tests, but instead want to find ways to catch every collision before it happens, and put each into "planned collisions" stack that is ordered by TOI.
Broad Phase
The only continuous broad-phase method I can think of is encasing each body in a circle and testing if each circle will ever overlap another. This seems horribly inefficient however, and lacks any culling.
I have no idea what continuous analogs might exist for today's discrete collision culling methods such as quad-trees either. How might I go about preventing inappropriate and pointless broad test's such as a discrete engine does?
Narrow Phase
I've managed to adapt the narrow SAT to a continuous check rather than discrete, but I'm sure there's other better algorithms out there in papers or sites you guys might have come across.
What various fast or accurate algorithm's do you suggest I use and what are the advantages / disatvantages of each?
Final Note:
I say techniques and not algorithms because I have not yet decided on how I will store different polygons which might be concave, convex, round, or even have holes. I plan to make a decision on this based on what the algorithm requires (for instance if I choose an algorithm that breaks down a polygon into triangles or convex shapes I will simply store the polygon data in this form).
You said circles, so I'm assuming you have 2D objects. You could extend your 2D object (or their bounding shapes) into 3D by adding a time dimension, and then you can use the normal techniques for checking for static collisions among a set of 3D objects.
For example, if you have a circle in (x, y) moving to the right (+x) with constant velocity, then, when you extend that with a time dimension, you have a diagonal cylinder in (x, y, t). By doing intersections between these 3D objects (just treat time as z), you can see if two objects will ever intersect. If point P is a point of intersection, then you know the time of that intersection simply by looking at P.t.
This generalizes into higher dimensions, too, though the math gets hard (for me anyway).
The collision detection might be tricky if objects have complex paths. For example, if your circle is influenced by gravity, then the extruded space-time object is a parabolic sphere sweep rather than a simple cylinder. You could pad the bounding objects a bit and use linear approximations over shorter periods of time and iterate, but I'm not sure if that violates what you mean by continuous.
I am going to assume you want things like gravity or other conservative forces in your simulation. If that's the case the trajectories of your objects are most likely not going to be lines, in which case, just like Adrian pointed out, the math will be somewhat harder. I can't think of a way to avoid checking all possible combinations of curves for collisions, but you can calculate the minimum distance between two curves rather easily, as long as both are solutions to linear systems (or, in general, if you have a closed form solution for the curves). If you know that x1(t) = f(t) and x2(t) = g(t) then what you'll want to
do is calculate the distance ||x1(t) - x2(t)|| and set its derivative to zero. This should be an expression that depends on f(t), g(t) and their derivatives and will give you a time tmin (or maybe a few possible ones) at which you then evaluate the distance and check to see if it is greater or smaller than r1+r2 --- the sum of the radii of the two bounding circles. If it is smaller, then you have a potential collision at that time so you run the narrow phase algorithm.
What is the most efficient way to randomly fill a space with as many non-overlapping shapes? In my specific case, I'm filling a circle with circles. I'm randomly placing circles until either a certain percentage of the outer circle is filled OR a certain number of placements have failed (i.e. were placed in a position that overlapped an existing circle). This is pretty slow, and often leaves empty spaces unless I allow a huge number of failures.
So, is there some other type of filling algorithm I can use to quickly fill as much space as possible, but still look random?
Issue you are running into
You are running into the Coupon collector's problem because you are using a technique of Rejection sampling.
You are also making strong assumptions about what a "random filling" is. Your algorithm will leave large gaps between circles; is this what you mean by "random"? Nevertheless it is a perfectly valid definition, and I approve of it.
Solution
To adapt your current "random filling" to avoid the rejection sampling coupon-collector's issue, merely divide the space you are filling into a grid. For example if your circles are of radius 1, divide the larger circle into a grid of 1/sqrt(2)-width blocks. When it becomes "impossible" to fill a gridbox, ignore that gridbox when you pick new points. Problem solved!
Possible dangers
You have to be careful how you code this however! Possible dangers:
If you do something like if (random point in invalid grid){ generateAnotherPoint() } then you ignore the benefit / core idea of this optimization.
If you do something like pickARandomValidGridbox() then you will slightly reduce the probability of making circles near the edge of the larger circle (though this may be fine if you're doing this for a graphics art project and not for a scientific or mathematical project); however if you make the grid size 1/sqrt(2) times the radius of the circle, you will not run into this problem because it will be impossible to draw blocks at the edge of the large circle, and thus you can ignore all gridboxes at the edge.
Implementation
Thus the generalization of your method to avoid the coupon-collector's problem is as follows:
Inputs: large circle coordinates/radius(R), small circle radius(r)
Output: set of coordinates of all the small circles
Algorithm:
divide your LargeCircle into a grid of r/sqrt(2)
ValidBoxes = {set of all gridboxes that lie entirely within LargeCircle}
SmallCircles = {empty set}
until ValidBoxes is empty:
pick a random gridbox Box from ValidBoxes
pick a random point inside Box to be center of small circle C
check neighboring gridboxes for other circles which may overlap*
if there is no overlap:
add C to SmallCircles
remove the box from ValidBoxes # possible because grid is small
else if there is an overlap:
increase the Box.failcount
if Box.failcount > MAX_PERGRIDBOX_FAIL_COUNT:
remove the box from ValidBoxes
return SmallCircles
(*) This step is also an important optimization, which I can only assume you do not already have. Without it, your doesThisCircleOverlapAnother(...) function is incredibly inefficient at O(N) per query, which will make filling in circles nearly impossible for large ratios R>>r.
This is the exact generalization of your algorithm to avoid the slowness, while still retaining the elegant randomness of it.
Generalization to larger irregular features
edit: Since you've commented that this is for a game and you are interested in irregular shapes, you can generalize this as follows. For any small irregular shape, enclose it in a circle that represent how far you want it to be from things. Your grid can be the size of the smallest terrain feature. Larger features can encompass 1x2 or 2x2 or 3x2 or 3x3 etc. contiguous blocks. Note that many games with features that span large distances (mountains) and small distances (torches) often require grids which are recursively split (i.e. some blocks are split into further 2x2 or 2x2x2 subblocks), generating a tree structure. This structure with extensive bookkeeping will allow you to randomly place the contiguous blocks, however it requires a lot of coding. What you can do however is use the circle-grid algorithm to place the larger features first (when there's lot of space to work with on the map and you can just check adjacent gridboxes for a collection without running into the coupon-collector's problem), then place the smaller features. If you can place your features in this order, this requires almost no extra coding besides checking neighboring gridboxes for collisions when you place a 1x2/3x3/etc. group.
One way to do this that produces interesting looking results is
create an empty NxM grid
create an empty has-open-neighbors set
for i = 1 to NumberOfRegions
pick a random point in the grid
assign that grid point a (terrain) type
add the point to the has-open-neighbors set
while has-open-neighbors is not empty
foreach point in has-open-neighbors
get neighbor-points as the immediate neighbors of point
that don't have an assigned terrain type in the grid
if none
remove point from has-open-neighbors
else
pick a random neighbor-point from neighbor-points
assign its grid location the same (terrain) type as point
add neighbor-point to the has-open-neighbors set
When done, has-open-neighbors will be empty and the grid will have been populated with at most NumberOfRegions regions (some regions with the same terrain type may be adjacent and so will combine to form a single region).
Sample output using this algorithm with 30 points, 14 terrain types, and a 200x200 pixel world:
Edit: tried to clarify the algorithm.
How about using a 2-step process:
Choose a bunch of n points randomly -- these will become the centres of the circles.
Determine the radii of these circles so that they do not overlap.
For step 2, for each circle centre you need to know the distance to its nearest neighbour. (This can be computed for all points in O(n^2) time using brute force, although it may be that faster algorithms exist for points in the plane.) Then simply divide that distance by 2 to get a safe radius. (You can also shrink it further, either by a fixed amount or by an amount proportional to the radius, to ensure that no circles will be touching.)
To see that this works, consider any point p and its nearest neighbour q, which is some distance d from p. If p is also q's nearest neighbour, then both points will get circles with radius d/2, which will therefore be touching; OTOH, if q has a different nearest neighbour, it must be at distance d' < d, so the circle centred at q will be even smaller. So either way, the 2 circles will not overlap.
My idea would be to start out with a compact grid layout. Then take each circle and perturb it in some random direction. The distance in which you perturb it can also be chosen at random (just make sure that the distance doesn't make it overlap another circle).
This is just an idea and I'm sure there are a number of ways you could modify it and improve upon it.
Imagine we have a 2D sky (10000x10000 coordinates). Anywhere on this sky we can have an aircraft, identified by its position (x, y). Any aircraft can start moving to another coordinates (in straight line).
There is a single component that manages all this positioning and movement. When a aircraft wants to move, it send it a message in the form of (start_pos, speed, end_pos). How can I tell in the component, when one aircraft will move in the line of sight of another (each aircraft has this as a property as radius of sight) in order to notify it. Note that many aircrafts can be moving at the same time. Also, this algorithm is good to be effective sa it can handle ~1000 planes.
If there is some constraint, that is limiting your solution - it can probably be removed. The problem is not fixed.
Use a line to represent the flight path.
Convert each line to a rectangle embracing it. The width of the rectangle is determined by your definition of "close" (The bigger the safety distance is, the wider the rectangle should be).
For each new flight plan:
Check if the new rectangle intersects with another rectangle.
If so, calculate when will each plane reach the collision point. If the time difference is too small (and you should define too small according to the scenario), refuse the new flight plan.
If you want to deal with the temporal aspect (i.e. dealing with the fact that the aircraft move), then I think a potentially simplification is lifting the problem by the time dimension (adding one more dimension - hence, the original problem, being 2D, becomes a 3D problem).
Then, the problem becomes a matter of finding the point where a line intersects a (tilted) cylinder. Finding all possible intersections would then be n^2; not too sure if that is efficient enough.
See Wikipedia:Quadtree for a data structure that will make it easy to find which airplanes are close to a given airplane. It will save you from doing O(N^2) tests for closeness.
You have good answers, I'll comment only on one aspect and probably not correctly
you say that you aircrafts move in form (start_pos, speed, end_pos)
if all aircrafts have such, let's call them, flightplans then you should be able to calculate directly when and where they will be within certain distance from each other, or when will they be at closest point from each other or if the will collide/get too near
So, if they indeed move according to the flightplans and do not deviate from them your problem is deterministic - it boils down to solving a set of equations, which for ~1000 planes is not such a big task.
If you do need to solve these equations faster you can employ the techniques described in other answers
using efficient structures that can speedup calculating distances (quadtree, octree, kd-trees),
splitting the problem to solve the equations only for some relevant future timeslice
prioritize solving equations for pairs for which the distance changes most rapidly
Of course converting time to a third dimension turns the aircrafts from points into lines and you end up searching for the closest points between two 3d lines (here's some math)
I actually found an answer to this question.
It is in the book Real-Time Collision Detection, p. 223. It's better named, as well: Intersecting Moving Sphere Against Sphere, where a 2D sphere is a circle. It's not so simple (and I may also violate some rights) to explain it here, but the basic idea is to fix one of the circles as a point, adding its radius to the radius of the moving one. The new direction for the moving one is the sum of the two original vectors.