Related
I'm trying to do something a little bit different then the usual.
I have a 3D gridmap node setup and I'm trying to autogenerate the dots and connections using A*
Instead of creating obstacles tiles, I'm creating walls in between the tiles, so the tiles are still walkable, you just cannot pass through a wall . I figure it that out all already
but I have no idea how to code how to connect the points in a easy way and not connect points that has walls in between...
I'm using a RaycastCast Node to detect the wall, and his position as it walk through every gridtile
but I can't figure it out a nested loop to find the neighbors points to connect
this is what I tried to do (obviously get_closest_point() is not working the way I wanted).
If I could get a point using only Vector3 Coordinates, I think I could make it work.
EXTRA: if you guys can show me a way to clean the code, especially on the "FORs" syntaxes, because I kind don't know what I'm doing
Any other clean code recommendations would be amazing and very much welcomed
At the end has a visual draw(image) of the logic of the idea.
onready var rc = $RayCast
onready var aS = AStar.new()
var floor_size = Vector3(12,0,12)
var origin = Vector3(-5.5, 0.5, -2.5)
var FRONT = Vector3(1,0,0)
var RIGHT = Vector3(0,0,1)
var BACK = Vector3(-1,0,0)
var LEFT = Vector3(-1,0,0)
func set_walkable():
var value = 0
var value2 = 0
var i = 0
for _length in range (origin.x, origin.x + floor_size.x + 1):
value += 1
value2 = 0
for _width in range(origin.z, origin.z + floor_size.z):
i += 1
value2 += 1
aS.add_point(i, Vector3(origin.x + value -1 , 0.5, origin.z + value2 -1) , 1.0)
value = 0
for _u in range(origin.x, origin.x + floor_size.x + 1):
value += 1
value2 = 0
for _v in range(origin.z, origin.z + floor_size.z):
value2 += 1
var from = aS.get_closest_point(Vector3(origin.x + value ,0.5, origin.z + value2) ) # Current
rc.translation = Vector3(origin.x + value -1 ,0.5, origin.z + value2 -1)
draw_points()
print(rc.translation)
rc.cast_to = FRONT
var to = aS.get_closest_point(rc.translation) # Front
if from != -1 and !rc.is_colliding():
aS.connect_points(from, to)
draw_connections(Vector3(rc.translation.x + 0.5,rc.translation.y,rc.translation.z))
rc.cast_to = BACK
to = aS.get_closest_point(rc.translation) # back
if from != -1 and !rc.is_colliding():
aS.connect_points(from, to)
draw_connections(Vector3(rc.translation.x + -0.5,rc.translation.y,rc.translation.z))
rc.cast_to = RIGHT
to = aS.get_closest_point(rc.translation) # right
if from != -1 and !rc.is_colliding():
aS.connect_points(from, to)
draw_connections(Vector3(rc.translation.x,rc.translation.y,rc.translation.z + 0.5))
rc.cast_to = LEFT
to = aS.get_closest_point(rc.translation) # left
if from != -1 and !rc.is_colliding():
aS.connect_points(from, to)
draw_connections(Vector3(rc.translation.x + 0.5,rc.translation.y,rc.translation.z + -0.5))
func draw_points(): # Make points visible
var cube = MeshInstance.new()
cube.mesh = CubeMesh.new()
cube.translation = rc.translation
cube.scale = Vector3(0.25,0.25,0.25)
add_child(cube)
print("Cubo adicionado")
func draw_connections(position): # Make connections visible
var line = MeshInstance.new()
line.mesh = PlaneMesh.new()
line.scale = Vector3(0.03,0.03,0.03)
line.translation = position
add_child(line)
print("Cubo adicionado")
Convert between Coordinates and Point ids
Let us establish a mapping between coordinates and point ids. Given that we have a floor_size, this is easy:
func vector_to_id(vector:Vector3, size:Vector3) -> int:
return int(int3(vector).dot(dimension_size(size)))
func id_to_vector(id:int, size:Vector3) -> Vector3:
var s:Vector3 = dimension_size(size)
var z:int = int(id / s.z)
var y:int = int((id % int(s.z)) / s.y)
var x:int = id % int(s.y)
return Vector3(x, y, z)
func int3(vector:Vector3) -> Vector3:
return Vector3(int(vector.x), int(vector.y), int(vector.z))
func dimension_size(size:Vector3) -> Vector3:
return Vector3(1, int(size.x + 1), int(size.x + 1) * int(size.y + 1))
Possible optimizations:
Store dimension_size(floor_size) and use that directly.
Skip calling int3 on the condition that the values you pass to vector_to_id are guaranteed to be integer.
We will need a function to get the total number of points:
func total_size(size:Vector3) -> int:
return int(size.x + 1) * int(size.y + 1) * int(size.z + 1)
Explanation
Let us start at 1D (one dimension). We will only have one coordinate. So we have an hypothetical Vector1 that has an x property. We are simply putting things in a line.
Then the mapping is trivial: to convert from the coordinates to the id, we take id = int(vector.x), and if we want the coordinate we simply do vector = Vector1(id).
Now, let us move to 2D. We have Vector2 with x and y. Thankfully we have a size (there are ways to do the mapping when the size is not known, but having a size is convenient).
Thus, we will be doing a 2D grid, with some width and height. The y coordinate tells us the row in which we are, and x tells us the position in the row.
Then if we have some id, we need to figure out how many rows we need to get there, and then in what position in that row we are. Figuring out the row is easy, we divide by the width of the grid. And the position in the row is the reminder. One caveat: We are measuring from 0 (so a width of 0 actually means 1 element per row).
We have:
func id_to_vector(id:int, size:Vector2) -> Vector2:
var y:int = int(id / (size.x + 1))
var x:int = id % int(size.x + 1)
return Vector2(x, y)
How about going the other way around? Well, we multiply y for the length of a row (the width), and add x:
func vector_to_id(vector:Vector2, size:Vector2) -> int:
return int(vector.x) + int(vector.y) * int(size.x + 1)
Notice:
We didn't need size.y.
We need size.x + 1 in both functions.
vector_to_id looks very similar to a dot product.
Thus, let us make a new function that returns the vector with which we would be making the dot product:
func dimension_size(size:Vector2) -> Vector2:
return Vector2(1, int(size.x + 1))
And use it:
func vector_to_id(vector:Vector2, size:Vector2) -> int:
return int(vector.dot(dimensional_size(size)))
func id_to_vector(id:int, size:Vector2) -> Vector2:
var s = dimensional_size(size)
var y:int = int(id / int(s.y))
var x:int = id % int(s.y)
return Vector2(x, y)
Note If there is no guarantee that vector only has integers in vector_to_id, the fractional part in the dot product make lead to a wrong result. Which is why I have a function to make it have only integer.
Time for 3D. We have Vector3 with x, y and z. We are making a 3D grid. Now the z will tell us the layer, and each layer is a 2D grid.
Let us review dimensional_size, We had:
func dimension_size(size:Vector2) -> Vector2:
return Vector2(1, int(size.x + 1))
That is the size of an element (1), the size of a row(size.x + 1), we need to add the size of a layer. That is, the size of the 2D grid, which is just width times height.
func dimension_size(size:Vector3) -> Vector3:
return Vector3(1, int(size.x + 1), int(size.x + 1) * int(size.y + 1))
And how do we get z from the id? We divide by the size of a grid (so we know on what grid we are). Then from the reminder of that division we can find y:
func vector_to_id(vector:Vector3, size:Vector3) -> int:
return int(vector.dot(dimensional_size(size)))
func id_to_vector(id:int, size:Vector3) -> Vector3:
var s = dimensional_size(size)
var z:int = int(id / int(s.z))
var y:int = int(int(id % int(s.z)) / int(s.y))
var x:int = id % int(s.y)
return Vector2(x, y, z)
In fact, technically, all these coordinates are computed on the same form:
func id_to_vector(id:int, size:Vector3) -> Vector3:
var s = dimensional_size(size)
var tot = total_size(size)
var z:int = int(int(id % int(tot)) / int(s.z))
var y:int = int(int(id % int(s.z)) / int(s.y))
var x:int = int(int(id % int(s.y)) / int(s.x))
return Vector2(x, y, z)
Except, there is no need to take the reminder with the total size because id should always be less than that. And there is no need to divide by s.x because the size of a single element is always 1. And I also removed some redundant int casts.
What is total_size? The next element of dimensional_size, of course:
func dimension_size(size:Vector3) -> Vector3:
return Vector3(1, int(size.x + 1), int(size.x + 1) * int(size.y + 1))
func total_size(size:Vector3) -> int:
return int(size.x + 1) * int(size.y + 1) * int(size.z + 1)
Checking connectivity
And a way to check connectivity:
func check_connected(start:Vector3, end:Vector3) -> bool:
rc.transform.origin = start
rc.cast_to = end
rc.force_update_transform()
rc.force_raycast_update()
return !raycast.is_colliding()
And you had the right idea with FRONT, RIGHT, BACK and LEFT but put them in an array:
var offsets = [Vector3(1,0,0), Vector3(0,0,1), Vector3(-1,0,0), Vector3(-1,0,0)]
Note I'm calling force_update_transform and force_raycast_update because are doing multiple raycast checks on the same frame.
Populating AStar
Alright, enough setup, we can now iterate:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
pass
On each iteration, we need to get the vector:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
var vector = id_to_vector(id, floor_size)
Posible optimization: Iterate over the vector coordinates directly to avoid calling id_to_vector.
We can add the vector to AStar:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
var vector = id_to_vector(id, floor_size)
aS.add_point(id, vector)
Next we need the adjacent vectors:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
var vector = id_to_vector(id, floor_size)
aS.add_point(id, vector)
for offset in offsets:
var adjacent = vector + offset
Let us add them to AStar too:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
var vector = id_to_vector(id, floor_size)
aS.add_point(id, vector)
for offset in offsets:
var adjacent = vector + offset
var adjacent_id = vector_to_id(adjacent, floor_size)
aS.add_point(adjacent_id, adjacent)
Possible optimizations:
Do not add if has_point returns true.
If the id of the adjacent vector is lower, do not process it.
Modify offsets so that you only check adjacent position that are yet to be added (and thus preventing the prior two cases).
Let us check connectivity:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
var vector = id_to_vector(id, floor_size)
aS.add_point(id, vector)
for offset in offsets:
var adjacent = vector + offset
var adjacent_id = vector_to_id(adjacent, floor_size)
aS.add_point(adjacent_id, adjacent)
if check_connected(vector, adjacent):
pass
And tell the AStar about the connectivity:
for id in total_size(floor_size):
var vector = id_to_vector(id, floor_size)
aS.add_point(id, vector)
for offset in offsets:
var adjacent = vector + offset
var adjacent_id = vector_to_id(adjacent, floor_size)
aS.add_point(adjacent_id, adjacent)
if check_connected(vector, adjacent):
connect_points(id, adjacent_id)
LeetCode medium 120. Triangle (Dynamic Programming)
Question:
Given a triangle, find the minimum path sum from top to bottom. Each step you may move to adjacent numbers on the row below.
For example, given the following triangle
[
[2],
[3,4],
[6,5,7],
[4,1,8,3]
]
//The minimum path sum from top to bottom is 11 (i.e., 2 + 3 + 5 + 1 = 11).
//Note:
//Bonus point if you are able to do this using only O(n) extra space, where n is the total number of rows in the triangle.
I always get
fatal error: Can't form Range with end < start
on "for i in (row-1)...0".
Thank you so much! Appreciate your time!
class Solution
{
func minimumTotal(triangle: [[Int]]) -> Int
{
if triangle.count == 0
{
return 0
}
if triangle.count == 1
{
return triangle[0][0]
}
var arr = [Int](count: triangle.last!.count, repeatedValue: 0)
let row = triangle.count
for i in (row-1)...0
{
let col = triangle[i].count
for j in 0...col-1
{
if i == row-1
{
arr[i] = triangle[i][j]
continue
}
arr[j] = min(arr[j], arr[j+1]) + triangle[i][j]
}
}
return arr[0]
}
}
var test1 = Solution()
//var input = [[10]]
//var input = [[1],[2,3]]
var input = [[-1],[2,3],[1,-1,-3]]
var result = test1.minimumTotal(input)
print(result)
for in (0...row-1).reverse()
Swift can't read row-1...0
It's a bad idea to create a range where the start is higher than the end: your code will compile, but it will crash at runtime, so use stride instead of ranage
for i in (row-1).stride(to: 0, by: 1) { }
With the U.S.'s large $1.5 Billion lottery this week, I wrote a function in Ruby to make Powerball picks. In Powerball, you choose 5 numbers from the range 1..69 (with no duplicates) and 1 number from the range 1..26.
This is what I came up with:
def pball
Array(1..69).shuffle[0..4].sort + [rand(1..26)]
end
It works by creating an array of integers from 1 to 69, shuffling that array, choosing the first 5 numbers, sorting those, and finally adding on a number from 1 to 26.
To do this in Swift takes a bit more work since Swift doesn't have the built-in shuffle method on Array.
This was my attempt:
func pball() -> [Int] {
let arr = Array(1...69).map{($0, drand48())}.sort{$0.1 < $1.1}.map{$0.0}[0...4].sort()
return arr + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26) + 1)]
}
Since there is no shuffle method, it works by creating an [Int] with values in the range 1...69. It then uses map to create [(Int, Double)], an array of tuple pairs that contain the numbers and a random Double in the range 0.0 ..< 1.0. It then sorts this array using the Double values and uses a second map to return to [Int] and then uses the slice [0...4] to extract the first 5 numbers and sort() to sort them.
In the second line, it appends a number in the range 1...26. I tried adding this to the first line, but Swift gave the error:
Expression was too complex to be solved in reasonable time; consider
breaking up the expression into distinct sub-expressions.
Can anyone suggest how to turn this into a 1-line function? Perhaps there is a better way to choose the 5 numbers from 1...69.
Xcode 8.3 • Swift 3.1
import GameKit
var powerballNumbers: [Int] {
return (GKRandomSource.sharedRandom().arrayByShufflingObjects(in: Array(1...69)) as! [Int])[0..<5].sorted() + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26) + 1)]
}
powerballNumbers // [5, 9, 62, 65, 69, 2]
Swift 2.x
import GameKit
var powerballNumbers: [Int] {
return (GKRandomSource.sharedRandom().arrayByShufflingObjectsInArray(Array(1...69)) as! [Int])[0...4].sort() + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26).successor())]
}
powerballNumbers // [21, 37, 39, 42, 65, 23]
I don't find the "one-liner" concept very compelling. Some languages lend themselves to it; others don't. I would suggest giving Swift a shuffle method to start with:
extension Array {
mutating func shuffle () {
for var i = self.count - 1; i != 0; i-- {
let ix1 = i
let ix2 = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(i+1)))
(self[ix1], self[ix2]) = (self[ix2], self[ix1])
}
}
}
But since I made this mutating, we still need more than one line to express the entire operation because we have to have a var reference to our starting array:
var arr = Array(1...69)
(1...4).forEach {_ in arr.shuffle()}
let result = Array(arr[0..<5]) + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26)) + 1]
If you really insist on the one-liner, and you don't count the code needed to implement shuffle, then you can do it, though less efficiently, by defining shuffle more like this:
extension Array {
func shuffle () -> [Element] {
var arr = self
for var i = arr.count - 1; i != 0; i-- {
let ix1 = i
let ix2 = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(i+1)))
(arr[ix1], arr[ix2]) = (arr[ix2], arr[ix1])
}
return arr
}
}
And here's your one-liner:
let result = Array(1...69).shuffle().shuffle().shuffle().shuffle()[0..<5] + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26)) + 1]
But oops, I omitted your sort. I don't see how to do that without getting the "too complex" error; to work around that, I had to split it into two lines:
var result = Array(1...69).shuffle().shuffle().shuffle().shuffle()[0..<5].sort(<)
result.append(Int(arc4random_uniform(26)) + 1)
How about this:
let winningDraw = (1...69).sort{ _ in arc4random_uniform(2) > 0}[0...4].sort() + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26)+1)]
[edit] above formula wasn't random. but this one will be
(1...69).map({Int(rand()%1000*70+$0)}).sort().map({$0%70})[0...4].sort() + [Int(rand()%26+1)]
For the fun of it, a non-GameplayKit (long) one-liner for Swift 3, using the global sequence(state:next:) function to generate random elements from the mutable state array rather than shuffling the array (although mutating the value array 5 times, so some extra copy operations here...)
let powerballNumbers = Array(sequence(state: Array(1...69), next: {
(s: inout [Int]) -> Int? in s.remove(at: Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(s.count))))})
.prefix(5).sorted()) + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26) + 1)]
... broken down for readability.
(Possible in future Swift version)
If the type inference weren't broken inout closure parameters (as arguments to closures), we could reduce the above to:
let powerballNumbers = Array(sequence(state: Array(1...69), next: {
$0.remove(at: Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32($0.count)))) })
.prefix(5).sorted()) + [Int(arc4random_uniform(26) + 1)]
If we'd also allow the following extension
extension Int {
var rand: Int { return Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(exactly: self) ?? 0)) }
}
Then, we could go on to reduce the one-line to:
let powerballNumbers = Array(sequence(state: Array(1...69), next: { $0.remove(at: $0.count.rand) }).prefix(5).sorted()) + [26.rand + 1]
Xcode 10 • Swift 4.2
Swift now has added shuffled() to ClosedRange and random(in:) to Int which now makes this easily accomplished in one line:
func pball() -> [Int] {
return (1...69).shuffled().prefix(5).sorted() + [Int.random(in: 1...26)]
}
Further trimmings:
Because of the return type of pball(), the Int can be inferred in the random method call. Also, .prefix(5) can be replaced with [...4]. Finally, return can be omitted from the one-line function:
func pball() -> [Int] {
(1...69).shuffled()[...4].sorted() + [.random(in: 1...26)]
}
I'm writing a bit of code to display a bar (or line) graph in our software. Everything's going fine. The thing that's got me stumped is labeling the Y axis.
The caller can tell me how finely they want the Y scale labeled, but I seem to be stuck on exactly what to label them in an "attractive" kind of way. I can't describe "attractive", and probably neither can you, but we know it when we see it, right?
So if the data points are:
15, 234, 140, 65, 90
And the user asks for 10 labels on the Y axis, a little bit of finagling with paper and pencil comes up with:
0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250
So there's 10 there (not including 0), the last one extends just beyond the highest value (234 < 250), and it's a "nice" increment of 25 each. If they asked for 8 labels, an increment of 30 would have looked nice:
0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240
Nine would have been tricky. Maybe just have used either 8 or 10 and call it close enough would be okay. And what to do when some of the points are negative?
I can see Excel tackles this problem nicely.
Does anyone know a general-purpose algorithm (even some brute force is okay) for solving this? I don't have to do it quickly, but it should look nice.
A long time ago I have written a graph module that covered this nicely. Digging in the grey mass gets the following:
Determine lower and upper bound of the data. (Beware of the special case where lower bound = upper bound!
Divide range into the required amount of ticks.
Round the tick range up into nice amounts.
Adjust the lower and upper bound accordingly.
Lets take your example:
15, 234, 140, 65, 90 with 10 ticks
lower bound = 15
upper bound = 234
range = 234-15 = 219
tick range = 21.9. This should be 25.0
new lower bound = 25 * round(15/25) = 0
new upper bound = 25 * round(1+235/25) = 250
So the range = 0,25,50,...,225,250
You can get the nice tick range with the following steps:
divide by 10^x such that the result lies between 0.1 and 1.0 (including 0.1 excluding 1).
translate accordingly:
0.1 -> 0.1
<= 0.2 -> 0.2
<= 0.25 -> 0.25
<= 0.3 -> 0.3
<= 0.4 -> 0.4
<= 0.5 -> 0.5
<= 0.6 -> 0.6
<= 0.7 -> 0.7
<= 0.75 -> 0.75
<= 0.8 -> 0.8
<= 0.9 -> 0.9
<= 1.0 -> 1.0
multiply by 10^x.
In this case, 21.9 is divided by 10^2 to get 0.219. This is <= 0.25 so we now have 0.25. Multiplied by 10^2 this gives 25.
Lets take a look at the same example with 8 ticks:
15, 234, 140, 65, 90 with 8 ticks
lower bound = 15
upper bound = 234
range = 234-15 = 219
tick range = 27.375
Divide by 10^2 for 0.27375, translates to 0.3, which gives (multiplied by 10^2) 30.
new lower bound = 30 * round(15/30) = 0
new upper bound = 30 * round(1+235/30) = 240
Which give the result you requested ;-).
------ Added by KD ------
Here's code that achieves this algorithm without using lookup tables, etc...:
double range = ...;
int tickCount = ...;
double unroundedTickSize = range/(tickCount-1);
double x = Math.ceil(Math.log10(unroundedTickSize)-1);
double pow10x = Math.pow(10, x);
double roundedTickRange = Math.ceil(unroundedTickSize / pow10x) * pow10x;
return roundedTickRange;
Generally speaking, the number of ticks includes the bottom tick, so the actual y-axis segments are one less than the number of ticks.
Here is a PHP example I am using. This function returns an array of pretty Y axis values that encompass the min and max Y values passed in. Of course, this routine could also be used for X axis values.
It allows you to "suggest" how many ticks you might want, but the routine will return
what looks good. I have added some sample data and shown the results for these.
#!/usr/bin/php -q
<?php
function makeYaxis($yMin, $yMax, $ticks = 10)
{
// This routine creates the Y axis values for a graph.
//
// Calculate Min amd Max graphical labels and graph
// increments. The number of ticks defaults to
// 10 which is the SUGGESTED value. Any tick value
// entered is used as a suggested value which is
// adjusted to be a 'pretty' value.
//
// Output will be an array of the Y axis values that
// encompass the Y values.
$result = array();
// If yMin and yMax are identical, then
// adjust the yMin and yMax values to actually
// make a graph. Also avoids division by zero errors.
if($yMin == $yMax)
{
$yMin = $yMin - 10; // some small value
$yMax = $yMax + 10; // some small value
}
// Determine Range
$range = $yMax - $yMin;
// Adjust ticks if needed
if($ticks < 2)
$ticks = 2;
else if($ticks > 2)
$ticks -= 2;
// Get raw step value
$tempStep = $range/$ticks;
// Calculate pretty step value
$mag = floor(log10($tempStep));
$magPow = pow(10,$mag);
$magMsd = (int)($tempStep/$magPow + 0.5);
$stepSize = $magMsd*$magPow;
// build Y label array.
// Lower and upper bounds calculations
$lb = $stepSize * floor($yMin/$stepSize);
$ub = $stepSize * ceil(($yMax/$stepSize));
// Build array
$val = $lb;
while(1)
{
$result[] = $val;
$val += $stepSize;
if($val > $ub)
break;
}
return $result;
}
// Create some sample data for demonstration purposes
$yMin = 60;
$yMax = 330;
$scale = makeYaxis($yMin, $yMax);
print_r($scale);
$scale = makeYaxis($yMin, $yMax,5);
print_r($scale);
$yMin = 60847326;
$yMax = 73425330;
$scale = makeYaxis($yMin, $yMax);
print_r($scale);
?>
Result output from sample data
# ./test1.php
Array
(
[0] => 60
[1] => 90
[2] => 120
[3] => 150
[4] => 180
[5] => 210
[6] => 240
[7] => 270
[8] => 300
[9] => 330
)
Array
(
[0] => 0
[1] => 90
[2] => 180
[3] => 270
[4] => 360
)
Array
(
[0] => 60000000
[1] => 62000000
[2] => 64000000
[3] => 66000000
[4] => 68000000
[5] => 70000000
[6] => 72000000
[7] => 74000000
)
Try this code. I've used it in a few charting scenarios and it works well. It's pretty fast too.
public static class AxisUtil
{
public static float CalculateStepSize(float range, float targetSteps)
{
// calculate an initial guess at step size
float tempStep = range/targetSteps;
// get the magnitude of the step size
float mag = (float)Math.Floor(Math.Log10(tempStep));
float magPow = (float)Math.Pow(10, mag);
// calculate most significant digit of the new step size
float magMsd = (int)(tempStep/magPow + 0.5);
// promote the MSD to either 1, 2, or 5
if (magMsd > 5.0)
magMsd = 10.0f;
else if (magMsd > 2.0)
magMsd = 5.0f;
else if (magMsd > 1.0)
magMsd = 2.0f;
return magMsd*magPow;
}
}
Sounds like the caller doesn't tell you the ranges it wants.
So you are free to changed the end points until you get it nicely divisible by your label count.
Let's define "nice". I would call nice if the labels are off by:
1. 2^n, for some integer n. eg. ..., .25, .5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ...
2. 10^n, for some integer n. eg. ..., .01, .1, 1, 10, 100
3. n/5 == 0, for some positive integer n, eg, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, ...
4. n/2 == 0, for some positive integer n, eg, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, ...
Find the max and min of your data series. Let's call these points:
min_point and max_point.
Now all you need to do is find is 3 values:
- start_label, where start_label < min_point and start_label is an integer
- end_label, where end_label > max_point and end_label is an integer
- label_offset, where label_offset is "nice"
that fit the equation:
(end_label - start_label)/label_offset == label_count
There are probably many solutions, so just pick one. Most of the time I bet you can set
start_label to 0
so just try different integer
end_label
until the offset is "nice"
I'm still battling with this :)
The original Gamecat answer does seem to work most of the time, but try plugging in say, "3 ticks" as the number of ticks required (for the same data values 15, 234, 140, 65, 90)....it seems to give a tick range of 73, which after dividing by 10^2 yields 0.73, which maps to 0.75, which gives a 'nice' tick range of 75.
Then calculating upper bound:
75*round(1+234/75) = 300
and the lower bound:
75 * round(15/75) = 0
But clearly if you start at 0, and proceed in steps of 75 up to the upper bound of 300, you end up with 0,75,150,225,300
....which is no doubt useful, but it's 4 ticks (not including 0) not the 3 ticks required.
Just frustrating that it doesn't work 100% of the time....which could well be down to my mistake somewhere of course!
The answer by Toon Krijthe does work most of the time. But sometimes it will produce excess number of ticks. It won't work with negative numbers as well. The overal approach to the problem is ok but there is a better way to handle this. The algorithm you want to use will depend on what you really want to get. Below I'm presenting you my code which I used in my JS Ploting library. I've tested it and it always works (hopefully ;) ). Here are the major steps:
get global extremas xMin and xMax (inlucde all the plots you want to print in the algorithm )
calculate range between xMin and xMax
calculate the order of magnitude of your range
calculate tick size by dividing range by number of ticks minus one
this one is optional. If you want to have zero tick allways printed you use tick size to calculate number of positive and negative ticks. Total number of ticks will be their sum + 1 (the zero tick)
this one is not needed if you have zero tick allways printed. Calculate lower and upper bound but remember to center the plot
Lets start. First the basic calculations
var range = Math.abs(xMax - xMin); //both can be negative
var rangeOrder = Math.floor(Math.log10(range)) - 1;
var power10 = Math.pow(10, rangeOrder);
var maxRound = (xMax > 0) ? Math.ceil(xMax / power10) : Math.floor(xMax / power10);
var minRound = (xMin < 0) ? Math.floor(xMin / power10) : Math.ceil(xMin / power10);
I round minimum and maximum values to be 100% sure that my plot will cover all the data. It is also very important to floor log10 of range wheter or not it is negative and substract 1 later. Otherwise your algorithm won't work for numbers that are lesser than one.
var fullRange = Math.abs(maxRound - minRound);
var tickSize = Math.ceil(fullRange / (this.XTickCount - 1));
//You can set nice looking ticks if you want
//You can find exemplary method below
tickSize = this.NiceLookingTick(tickSize);
//Here you can write a method to determine if you need zero tick
//You can find exemplary method below
var isZeroNeeded = this.HasZeroTick(maxRound, minRound, tickSize);
I use "nice looking ticks" to avoid ticks like 7, 13, 17 etc. Method I use here is pretty simple. It is also nice to have zeroTick when needed. Plot looks much more professional this way. You will find all the methods at the end of this answer.
Now you have to calculate upper and lower bounds. This is very easy with zero tick but requires a little bit more effort in other case. Why? Because we want to center the plot within upper and lower bound nicely. Have a look at my code. Some of the variables are defined outside of this scope and some of them are properties of an object in which whole presented code is kept.
if (isZeroNeeded) {
var positiveTicksCount = 0;
var negativeTickCount = 0;
if (maxRound != 0) {
positiveTicksCount = Math.ceil(maxRound / tickSize);
XUpperBound = tickSize * positiveTicksCount * power10;
}
if (minRound != 0) {
negativeTickCount = Math.floor(minRound / tickSize);
XLowerBound = tickSize * negativeTickCount * power10;
}
XTickRange = tickSize * power10;
this.XTickCount = positiveTicksCount - negativeTickCount + 1;
}
else {
var delta = (tickSize * (this.XTickCount - 1) - fullRange) / 2.0;
if (delta % 1 == 0) {
XUpperBound = maxRound + delta;
XLowerBound = minRound - delta;
}
else {
XUpperBound = maxRound + Math.ceil(delta);
XLowerBound = minRound - Math.floor(delta);
}
XTickRange = tickSize * power10;
XUpperBound = XUpperBound * power10;
XLowerBound = XLowerBound * power10;
}
And here are methods I mentioned before which you can write by yourself but you can also use mine
this.NiceLookingTick = function (tickSize) {
var NiceArray = [1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 10];
var tickOrder = Math.floor(Math.log10(tickSize));
var power10 = Math.pow(10, tickOrder);
tickSize = tickSize / power10;
var niceTick;
var minDistance = 10;
var index = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < NiceArray.length; i++) {
var dist = Math.abs(NiceArray[i] - tickSize);
if (dist < minDistance) {
minDistance = dist;
index = i;
}
}
return NiceArray[index] * power10;
}
this.HasZeroTick = function (maxRound, minRound, tickSize) {
if (maxRound * minRound < 0)
{
return true;
}
else if (Math.abs(maxRound) < tickSize || Math.round(minRound) < tickSize) {
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}
There is only one more thing that is not included here. This is the "nice looking bounds". These are lower bounds that are numbers similar to the numbers in "nice looking ticks". For example it is better to have the lower bound starting at 5 with tick size 5 than having a plot that starts at 6 with the same tick size. But this my fired I leave it to you.
Hope it helps.
Cheers!
Converted this answer as Swift 4
extension Int {
static func makeYaxis(yMin: Int, yMax: Int, ticks: Int = 10) -> [Int] {
var yMin = yMin
var yMax = yMax
var ticks = ticks
// This routine creates the Y axis values for a graph.
//
// Calculate Min amd Max graphical labels and graph
// increments. The number of ticks defaults to
// 10 which is the SUGGESTED value. Any tick value
// entered is used as a suggested value which is
// adjusted to be a 'pretty' value.
//
// Output will be an array of the Y axis values that
// encompass the Y values.
var result = [Int]()
// If yMin and yMax are identical, then
// adjust the yMin and yMax values to actually
// make a graph. Also avoids division by zero errors.
if yMin == yMax {
yMin -= ticks // some small value
yMax += ticks // some small value
}
// Determine Range
let range = yMax - yMin
// Adjust ticks if needed
if ticks < 2 { ticks = 2 }
else if ticks > 2 { ticks -= 2 }
// Get raw step value
let tempStep: CGFloat = CGFloat(range) / CGFloat(ticks)
// Calculate pretty step value
let mag = floor(log10(tempStep))
let magPow = pow(10,mag)
let magMsd = Int(tempStep / magPow + 0.5)
let stepSize = magMsd * Int(magPow)
// build Y label array.
// Lower and upper bounds calculations
let lb = stepSize * Int(yMin/stepSize)
let ub = stepSize * Int(ceil(CGFloat(yMax)/CGFloat(stepSize)))
// Build array
var val = lb
while true {
result.append(val)
val += stepSize
if val > ub { break }
}
return result
}
}
this works like a charm, if you want 10 steps + zero
//get proper scale for y
$maximoyi_temp= max($institucion); //get max value from data array
for ($i=10; $i< $maximoyi_temp; $i=($i*10)) {
if (($divisor = ($maximoyi_temp / $i)) < 2) break; //get which divisor will give a number between 1-2
}
$factor_d = $maximoyi_temp / $i;
$factor_d = ceil($factor_d); //round up number to 2
$maximoyi = $factor_d * $i; //get new max value for y
if ( ($maximoyi/ $maximoyi_temp) > 2) $maximoyi = $maximoyi /2; //check if max value is too big, then split by 2
The above algorithms do not take into consideration the case when the range between min and max value is too small. And what if these values are a lot higher than zero? Then, we have the possibility to start the y-axis with a value higher than zero. Also, in order to avoid our line to be entirely on the upper or the down side of the graph, we have to give it some "air to breathe".
To cover those cases I wrote (on PHP) the above code:
function calculateStartingPoint($min, $ticks, $times, $scale) {
$starting_point = $min - floor((($ticks - $times) * $scale)/2);
if ($starting_point < 0) {
$starting_point = 0;
} else {
$starting_point = floor($starting_point / $scale) * $scale;
$starting_point = ceil($starting_point / $scale) * $scale;
$starting_point = round($starting_point / $scale) * $scale;
}
return $starting_point;
}
function calculateYaxis($min, $max, $ticks = 7)
{
print "Min = " . $min . "\n";
print "Max = " . $max . "\n";
$range = $max - $min;
$step = floor($range/$ticks);
print "First step is " . $step . "\n";
$available_steps = array(5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500);
$distance = 1000;
$scale = 0;
foreach ($available_steps as $i) {
if (($i - $step < $distance) && ($i - $step > 0)) {
$distance = $i - $step;
$scale = $i;
}
}
print "Final scale step is " . $scale . "\n";
$times = floor($range/$scale);
print "range/scale = " . $times . "\n";
print "floor(times/2) = " . floor($times/2) . "\n";
$starting_point = calculateStartingPoint($min, $ticks, $times, $scale);
if ($starting_point + ($ticks * $scale) < $max) {
$ticks += 1;
}
print "starting_point = " . $starting_point . "\n";
// result calculation
$result = [];
for ($x = 0; $x <= $ticks; $x++) {
$result[] = $starting_point + ($x * $scale);
}
return $result;
}
For anyone who need this in ES5 Javascript, been wrestling a bit, but here it is:
var min=52;
var max=173;
var actualHeight=500; // 500 pixels high graph
var tickCount =Math.round(actualHeight/100);
// we want lines about every 100 pixels.
if(tickCount <3) tickCount =3;
var range=Math.abs(max-min);
var unroundedTickSize = range/(tickCount-1);
var x = Math.ceil(Math.log10(unroundedTickSize)-1);
var pow10x = Math.pow(10, x);
var roundedTickRange = Math.ceil(unroundedTickSize / pow10x) * pow10x;
var min_rounded=roundedTickRange * Math.floor(min/roundedTickRange);
var max_rounded= roundedTickRange * Math.ceil(max/roundedTickRange);
var nr=tickCount;
var str="";
for(var x=min_rounded;x<=max_rounded;x+=roundedTickRange)
{
str+=x+", ";
}
console.log("nice Y axis "+str);
Based on the excellent answer by Toon Krijtje.
This solution is based on a Java example I found.
const niceScale = ( minPoint, maxPoint, maxTicks) => {
const niceNum = ( localRange, round) => {
var exponent,fraction,niceFraction;
exponent = Math.floor(Math.log10(localRange));
fraction = localRange / Math.pow(10, exponent);
if (round) {
if (fraction < 1.5) niceFraction = 1;
else if (fraction < 3) niceFraction = 2;
else if (fraction < 7) niceFraction = 5;
else niceFraction = 10;
} else {
if (fraction <= 1) niceFraction = 1;
else if (fraction <= 2) niceFraction = 2;
else if (fraction <= 5) niceFraction = 5;
else niceFraction = 10;
}
return niceFraction * Math.pow(10, exponent);
}
const result = [];
const range = niceNum(maxPoint - minPoint, false);
const stepSize = niceNum(range / (maxTicks - 1), true);
const lBound = Math.floor(minPoint / stepSize) * stepSize;
const uBound = Math.ceil(maxPoint / stepSize) * stepSize;
for(let i=lBound;i<=uBound;i+=stepSize) result.push(i);
return result;
};
console.log(niceScale(15,234,6));
// > [0, 100, 200, 300]
Based on #Gamecat's algorithm, I produced the following helper class
public struct Interval
{
public readonly double Min, Max, TickRange;
public static Interval Find(double min, double max, int tickCount, double padding = 0.05)
{
double range = max - min;
max += range*padding;
min -= range*padding;
var attempts = new List<Interval>();
for (int i = tickCount; i > tickCount / 2; --i)
attempts.Add(new Interval(min, max, i));
return attempts.MinBy(a => a.Max - a.Min);
}
private Interval(double min, double max, int tickCount)
{
var candidates = (min <= 0 && max >= 0 && tickCount <= 8) ? new[] {2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10} : new[] {2, 2.5, 5, 10};
double unroundedTickSize = (max - min) / (tickCount - 1);
double x = Math.Ceiling(Math.Log10(unroundedTickSize) - 1);
double pow10X = Math.Pow(10, x);
TickRange = RoundUp(unroundedTickSize/pow10X, candidates) * pow10X;
Min = TickRange * Math.Floor(min / TickRange);
Max = TickRange * Math.Ceiling(max / TickRange);
}
// 1 < scaled <= 10
private static double RoundUp(double scaled, IEnumerable<double> candidates)
{
return candidates.First(candidate => scaled <= candidate);
}
}
A demo of accepted answer
function tickEvery(range, ticks) {
return Math.ceil((range / ticks) / Math.pow(10, Math.ceil(Math.log10(range / ticks) - 1))) * Math.pow(10, Math.ceil(Math.log10(range / ticks) - 1));
}
function update() {
const range = document.querySelector("#range").value;
const ticks = document.querySelector("#ticks").value;
const result = tickEvery(range, ticks);
document.querySelector("#result").textContent = `With range ${range} and ${ticks} ticks, tick every ${result} for a total of ${Math.ceil(range / result)} ticks at ${new Array(Math.ceil(range / result)).fill(0).map((v, n) => Math.round(n * result)).join(", ")}`;
}
update();
<input id="range" min="1" max="10000" oninput="update()" style="width:100%" type="range" value="5000" width="40" />
<br/>
<input id="ticks" min="1" max="20" oninput="update()" type="range" style="width:100%" value="10" />
<p id="result" style="font-family:sans-serif"></p>
I need a reasonably smart algorithm to come up with "nice" grid lines for a graph (chart).
For example, assume a bar chart with values of 10, 30, 72 and 60. You know:
Min value: 10
Max value: 72
Range: 62
The first question is: what do you start from? In this case, 0 would be the intuitive value but this won't hold up on other data sets so I'm guessing:
Grid min value should be either 0 or a "nice" value lower than the min value of the data in range. Alternatively, it can be specified.
Grid max value should be a "nice" value above the max value in the range. Alternatively, it can be specified (eg you might want 0 to 100 if you're showing percentages, irrespective of the actual values).
The number of grid lines (ticks) in the range should be either specified or a number within a given range (eg 3-8) such that the values are "nice" (ie round numbers) and you maximise use of the chart area. In our example, 80 would be a sensible max as that would use 90% of the chart height (72/80) whereas 100 would create more wasted space.
Anyone know of a good algorithm for this? Language is irrelevant as I'll implement it in what I need to.
I've done this with kind of a brute force method. First, figure out the maximum number of tick marks you can fit into the space. Divide the total range of values by the number of ticks; this is the minimum spacing of the tick. Now calculate the floor of the logarithm base 10 to get the magnitude of the tick, and divide by this value. You should end up with something in the range of 1 to 10. Simply choose the round number greater than or equal to the value and multiply it by the logarithm calculated earlier. This is your final tick spacing.
Example in Python:
import math
def BestTick(largest, mostticks):
minimum = largest / mostticks
magnitude = 10 ** math.floor(math.log(minimum, 10))
residual = minimum / magnitude
if residual > 5:
tick = 10 * magnitude
elif residual > 2:
tick = 5 * magnitude
elif residual > 1:
tick = 2 * magnitude
else:
tick = magnitude
return tick
Edit: you are free to alter the selection of "nice" intervals. One commenter appears to be dissatisfied with the selections provided, because the actual number of ticks can be up to 2.5 times less than the maximum. Here's a slight modification that defines a table for the nice intervals. In the example, I've expanded the selections so that the number of ticks won't be less than 3/5 of the maximum.
import bisect
def BestTick2(largest, mostticks):
minimum = largest / mostticks
magnitude = 10 ** math.floor(math.log(minimum, 10))
residual = minimum / magnitude
# this table must begin with 1 and end with 10
table = [1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10]
tick = table[bisect.bisect_right(table, residual)] if residual < 10 else 10
return tick * magnitude
There are 2 pieces to the problem:
Determine the order of magnitude involved, and
Round to something convenient.
You can handle the first part by using logarithms:
range = max - min;
exponent = int(log(range)); // See comment below.
magnitude = pow(10, exponent);
So, for example, if your range is from 50 - 1200, the exponent is 3 and the magnitude is 1000.
Then deal with the second part by deciding how many subdivisions you want in your grid:
value_per_division = magnitude / subdivisions;
This is a rough calculation because the exponent has been truncated to an integer. You may want to tweak the exponent calculation to handle boundary conditions better, e.g. by rounding instead of taking the int() if you end up with too many subdivisions.
I use the following algorithm. It's similar to others posted here but it's the first example in C#.
public static class AxisUtil
{
public static float CalcStepSize(float range, float targetSteps)
{
// calculate an initial guess at step size
var tempStep = range/targetSteps;
// get the magnitude of the step size
var mag = (float)Math.Floor(Math.Log10(tempStep));
var magPow = (float)Math.Pow(10, mag);
// calculate most significant digit of the new step size
var magMsd = (int)(tempStep/magPow + 0.5);
// promote the MSD to either 1, 2, or 5
if (magMsd > 5)
magMsd = 10;
else if (magMsd > 2)
magMsd = 5;
else if (magMsd > 1)
magMsd = 2;
return magMsd*magPow;
}
}
CPAN provides an implementation here (see source link)
See also Tickmark algorithm for a graph axis
FYI, with your sample data:
Maple: Min=8, Max=74, Labels=10,20,..,60,70, Ticks=10,12,14,..70,72
MATLAB: Min=10, Max=80, Labels=10,20,,..,60,80
Here's another implementation in JavaScript:
var calcStepSize = function(range, targetSteps)
{
// calculate an initial guess at step size
var tempStep = range / targetSteps;
// get the magnitude of the step size
var mag = Math.floor(Math.log(tempStep) / Math.LN10);
var magPow = Math.pow(10, mag);
// calculate most significant digit of the new step size
var magMsd = Math.round(tempStep / magPow + 0.5);
// promote the MSD to either 1, 2, or 5
if (magMsd > 5.0)
magMsd = 10.0;
else if (magMsd > 2.0)
magMsd = 5.0;
else if (magMsd > 1.0)
magMsd = 2.0;
return magMsd * magPow;
};
I am the author of "Algorithm for Optimal Scaling on a Chart Axis". It used to be hosted on trollop.org, but I have recently moved domains/blogging engines.
Please see my answer to a related question.
Taken from Mark above, a slightly more complete Util class in c#. That also calculates a suitable first and last tick.
public class AxisAssists
{
public double Tick { get; private set; }
public AxisAssists(double aTick)
{
Tick = aTick;
}
public AxisAssists(double range, int mostticks)
{
var minimum = range / mostticks;
var magnitude = Math.Pow(10.0, (Math.Floor(Math.Log(minimum) / Math.Log(10))));
var residual = minimum / magnitude;
if (residual > 5)
{
Tick = 10 * magnitude;
}
else if (residual > 2)
{
Tick = 5 * magnitude;
}
else if (residual > 1)
{
Tick = 2 * magnitude;
}
else
{
Tick = magnitude;
}
}
public double GetClosestTickBelow(double v)
{
return Tick* Math.Floor(v / Tick);
}
public double GetClosestTickAbove(double v)
{
return Tick * Math.Ceiling(v / Tick);
}
}
With ability to create an instance, but if you just want calculate and throw it away:
double tickX = new AxisAssists(aMaxX - aMinX, 8).Tick;
I wrote an objective-c method to return a nice axis scale and nice ticks for given min- and max values of your data set:
- (NSArray*)niceAxis:(double)minValue :(double)maxValue
{
double min_ = 0, max_ = 0, min = minValue, max = maxValue, power = 0, factor = 0, tickWidth, minAxisValue = 0, maxAxisValue = 0;
NSArray *factorArray = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:#"0.0f",#"1.2f",#"2.5f",#"5.0f",#"10.0f",nil];
NSArray *scalarArray = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:#"0.2f",#"0.2f",#"0.5f",#"1.0f",#"2.0f",nil];
// calculate x-axis nice scale and ticks
// 1. min_
if (min == 0) {
min_ = 0;
}
else if (min > 0) {
min_ = MAX(0, min-(max-min)/100);
}
else {
min_ = min-(max-min)/100;
}
// 2. max_
if (max == 0) {
if (min == 0) {
max_ = 1;
}
else {
max_ = 0;
}
}
else if (max < 0) {
max_ = MIN(0, max+(max-min)/100);
}
else {
max_ = max+(max-min)/100;
}
// 3. power
power = log(max_ - min_) / log(10);
// 4. factor
factor = pow(10, power - floor(power));
// 5. nice ticks
for (NSInteger i = 0; factor > [[factorArray objectAtIndex:i]doubleValue] ; i++) {
tickWidth = [[scalarArray objectAtIndex:i]doubleValue] * pow(10, floor(power));
}
// 6. min-axisValues
minAxisValue = tickWidth * floor(min_/tickWidth);
// 7. min-axisValues
maxAxisValue = tickWidth * floor((max_/tickWidth)+1);
// 8. create NSArray to return
NSArray *niceAxisValues = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:[NSNumber numberWithDouble:minAxisValue], [NSNumber numberWithDouble:maxAxisValue],[NSNumber numberWithDouble:tickWidth], nil];
return niceAxisValues;
}
You can call the method like this:
NSArray *niceYAxisValues = [self niceAxis:-maxy :maxy];
and get you axis setup:
double minYAxisValue = [[niceYAxisValues objectAtIndex:0]doubleValue];
double maxYAxisValue = [[niceYAxisValues objectAtIndex:1]doubleValue];
double ticksYAxis = [[niceYAxisValues objectAtIndex:2]doubleValue];
Just in case you want to limit the number of axis ticks do this:
NSInteger maxNumberOfTicks = 9;
NSInteger numberOfTicks = valueXRange / ticksXAxis;
NSInteger newNumberOfTicks = floor(numberOfTicks / (1 + floor(numberOfTicks/(maxNumberOfTicks+0.5))));
double newTicksXAxis = ticksXAxis * (1 + floor(numberOfTicks/(maxNumberOfTicks+0.5)));
The first part of the code is based on the calculation I found here to calculate nice graph axis scale and ticks similar to excel graphs. It works excellent for all kind of data sets. Here is an example of an iPhone implementation:
Another idea is to have the range of the axis be the range of the values, but put the tick marks at the appropriate position.. i.e. for 7 to 22 do:
[- - - | - - - - | - - - - | - - ]
10 15 20
As for selecting the tick spacing, I would suggest any number of the form 10^x * i / n, where i < n, and 0 < n < 10. Generate this list, and sort them, and you can find the largest number smaller than value_per_division (as in adam_liss) using a binary search.
Using a lot of inspiration from answers already availible here, here's my implementation in C. Note that there's some extendibility built into the ndex array.
float findNiceDelta(float maxvalue, int count)
{
float step = maxvalue/count,
order = powf(10, floorf(log10(step))),
delta = (int)(step/order + 0.5);
static float ndex[] = {1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 5, 10};
static int ndexLenght = sizeof(ndex)/sizeof(float);
for(int i = ndexLenght - 2; i > 0; --i)
if(delta > ndex[i]) return ndex[i + 1] * order;
return delta*order;
}
In R, use
tickSize <- function(range,minCount){
logMaxTick <- log10(range/minCount)
exponent <- floor(logMaxTick)
mantissa <- 10^(logMaxTick-exponent)
af <- c(1,2,5) # allowed factors
mantissa <- af[findInterval(mantissa,af)]
return(mantissa*10^exponent)
}
where range argument is max-min of domain.
Here is a javascript function I wrote to round grid intervals (max-min)/gridLinesNumber to beautiful values. It works with any numbers, see the gist with detailed commets to find out how it works and how to call it.
var ceilAbs = function(num, to, bias) {
if (to == undefined) to = [-2, -5, -10]
if (bias == undefined) bias = 0
var numAbs = Math.abs(num) - bias
var exp = Math.floor( Math.log10(numAbs) )
if (typeof to == 'number') {
return Math.sign(num) * to * Math.ceil(numAbs/to) + bias
}
var mults = to.filter(function(value) {return value > 0})
to = to.filter(function(value) {return value < 0}).map(Math.abs)
var m = Math.abs(numAbs) * Math.pow(10, -exp)
var mRounded = Infinity
for (var i=0; i<mults.length; i++) {
var candidate = mults[i] * Math.ceil(m / mults[i])
if (candidate < mRounded)
mRounded = candidate
}
for (var i=0; i<to.length; i++) {
if (to[i] >= m && to[i] < mRounded)
mRounded = to[i]
}
return Math.sign(num) * mRounded * Math.pow(10, exp) + bias
}
Calling ceilAbs(number, [0.5]) for different numbers will round numbers like that:
301573431.1193228 -> 350000000
14127.786597236991 -> 15000
-63105746.17236853 -> -65000000
-718854.2201183736 -> -750000
-700660.340487957 -> -750000
0.055717507097870114 -> 0.06
0.0008068701205775142 -> 0.00085
-8.66660070605576 -> -9
-400.09256079792976 -> -450
0.0011740548815578223 -> 0.0015
-5.3003294346854085e-8 -> -6e-8
-0.00005815960629843176 -> -0.00006
-742465964.5184875 -> -750000000
-81289225.90985894 -> -85000000
0.000901771713513881 -> 0.00095
-652726598.5496342 -> -700000000
-0.6498901364393532 -> -0.65
0.9978325804695487 -> 1
5409.4078950583935 -> 5500
26906671.095639467 -> 30000000
Check out the fiddle to experiment with the code. Code in the answer, the gist and the fiddle is slightly different I'm using the one given in the answer.
If you are trying to get the scales looking right on VB.NET charts, then I've used the example from Adam Liss, but make sure when you set the min and max scale values that you pass them in from a variable of type decimal (not of type single or double) otherwise the tick mark values end up being set to like 8 decimal places.
So as an example, I had 1 chart where I set the min Y Axis value to 0.0001 and the max Y Axis value to 0.002.
If I pass these values to the chart object as singles I get tick mark values of 0.00048000001697801, 0.000860000036482233 ....
Whereas if I pass these values to the chart object as decimals I get nice tick mark values of 0.00048, 0.00086 ......
In python:
steps = [numpy.round(x) for x in np.linspace(min, max, num=num_of_steps)]
Answer that can dynamically always plot 0, handle positive and negatives, and small and large numbers, gives the tick interval size and how many to plot; written in Go
forcePlotZero changes how the max values are rounded so it'll always make a nice multiple to then get back to zero. Example:
if forcePlotZero == false then 237 --> 240
if forcePlotZero == true then 237 --> 300
Intervals are calculated by getting the multiple of 10/100/1000 etc for max and then subtracting till the cumulative total of these subtractions is < min
Here's the output from the function, along with showing forcePlotZero
Force to plot zero
max and min inputs
rounded max and min
intervals
forcePlotZero=false
min: -104 max: 240
minned: -160 maxed: 240
intervalCount: 5 intervalSize: 100
forcePlotZero=true
min: -104 max: 240
minned: -200 maxed: 300
intervalCount: 6 intervalSize: 100
forcePlotZero=false
min: 40 max: 1240
minned: 0 maxed: 1300
intervalCount: 14 intervalSize: 100
forcePlotZero=false
min: 200 max: 240
minned: 190 maxed: 240
intervalCount: 6 intervalSize: 10
forcePlotZero=false
min: 0.7 max: 1.12
minned: 0.6 maxed: 1.2
intervalCount: 7 intervalSize: 0.1
forcePlotZero=false
min: -70.5 max: -12.5
minned: -80 maxed: -10
intervalCount: 8 intervalSize: 10
Here's the playground link https://play.golang.org/p/1IhiX_hRQvo
func getMaxMinIntervals(max float64, min float64, forcePlotZero bool) (maxRounded float64, minRounded float64, intervalCount float64, intervalSize float64) {
//STEP 1: start off determining the maxRounded value for the axis
precision := 0.0
precisionDampener := 0.0 //adjusts to prevent 235 going to 300, instead dampens the scaling to get 240
epsilon := 0.0000001
if math.Abs(max) >= 0 && math.Abs(max) < 2 {
precision = math.Floor(-math.Log10(epsilon + math.Abs(max) - math.Floor(math.Abs(max)))) //counting number of zeros between decimal point and rightward digits
precisionDampener = 1
precision = precision + precisionDampener
} else if math.Abs(max) >= 2 && math.Abs(max) < 100 {
precision = math.Ceil(math.Log10(math.Abs(max)+1)) * -1 //else count number of digits before decimal point
precisionDampener = 1
precision = precision + precisionDampener
} else {
precision = math.Ceil(math.Log10(math.Abs(max)+1)) * -1 //else count number of digits before decimal point
precisionDampener = 2
if forcePlotZero == true {
precisionDampener = 1
}
precision = precision + precisionDampener
}
useThisFactorForIntervalCalculation := 0.0 // this is needed because intervals are calculated from the max value with a zero origin, this uses range for min - max
if max < 0 {
maxRounded = (math.Floor(math.Abs(max)*(math.Pow10(int(precision)))) / math.Pow10(int(precision)) * -1)
useThisFactorForIntervalCalculation = (math.Floor(math.Abs(max)*(math.Pow10(int(precision)))) / math.Pow10(int(precision))) + ((math.Ceil(math.Abs(min)*(math.Pow10(int(precision)))) / math.Pow10(int(precision))) * -1)
} else {
maxRounded = math.Ceil(max*(math.Pow10(int(precision)))) / math.Pow10(int(precision))
useThisFactorForIntervalCalculation = maxRounded
}
minNumberOfIntervals := 2.0
maxNumberOfIntervals := 19.0
intervalSize = 0.001
intervalCount = minNumberOfIntervals
//STEP 2: get interval size (the step size on the axis)
for {
if math.Abs(useThisFactorForIntervalCalculation)/intervalSize < minNumberOfIntervals || math.Abs(useThisFactorForIntervalCalculation)/intervalSize > maxNumberOfIntervals {
intervalSize = intervalSize * 10
} else {
break
}
}
//STEP 3: check that intervals are not too large, safety for max and min values that are close together (240, 220 etc)
for {
if max-min < intervalSize {
intervalSize = intervalSize / 10
} else {
break
}
}
//STEP 4: now we can get minRounded by adding the interval size to 0 till we get to the point where another increment would make cumulative increments > min, opposite for negative in
minRounded = 0.0
if min >= 0 {
for {
if minRounded < min {
minRounded = minRounded + intervalSize
} else {
minRounded = minRounded - intervalSize
break
}
}
} else {
minRounded = maxRounded //keep going down, decreasing by the interval size till minRounded < min
for {
if minRounded > min {
minRounded = minRounded - intervalSize
} else {
break
}
}
}
//STEP 5: get number of intervals to draw
intervalCount = (maxRounded - minRounded) / intervalSize
intervalCount = math.Ceil(intervalCount) + 1 // include the origin as an interval
//STEP 6: Check that the intervalCount isn't too high
if intervalCount-1 >= (intervalSize * 2) && intervalCount > maxNumberOfIntervals {
intervalCount = math.Ceil(intervalCount / 2)
intervalSize *= 2
}
return}
This is in python and for base 10.
Doesn't cover all your questions but I think you can build on it
import numpy as np
def create_ticks(lo,hi):
s = 10**(np.floor(np.log10(hi - lo)))
start = s * np.floor(lo / s)
end = s * np.ceil(hi / s)
ticks = [start]
t = start
while (t < end):
ticks += [t]
t = t + s
return ticks