I want to write a program to draw a picture which covers a plane with tiled irregular quadrangles, just like this one:
However, I don't know the relevant algorithms, for example, in which order should I draw the edges?
Could someone point a direction for me?
Apologies, in my previous answer, I misunderstood the question.
Here is one stab at an algorithm (not necessarily the most optimal way, but a way). All you need is the ability to render a polygon and a basic rotation.
If you don't want the labels to be flipped, draw them separately (the labels can be stored in the vertices, e.g., and rotated with the polygon points, but drawn upright as text).
Edit
I received a question about the "start with an arbitrary polygon" step. I didn't communicate that step very clearly, as I actually intended to merely suggest an arbitrary polygon from the provided diagram, and not any arbitrary polygon in the world.
However, this should work at least for arbitrary quads, including concave ones, like so:
I'm afraid I lack the proper background to provide a proof as to why this works, however. Perhaps more mathematically-savvy people can help there with the proof.
I think one way to tackle the proof is to first start with the notion that all tiled edges are manifold -- this is a given considering that we're generating a neighboring polygon at every edge in order to generate the tiled result. Then we might be able to prove that every 2-valence boundary vertex is going to become a 4-valence vertex as a result of this operation (since each of its two edges are going to become manifold, and that introduces two new vertex edges into the mix -- this seems like the hardest part to prove to me). Last step might be to prove that the sum of the angles at each 4-valence vertex will always add up to 360 degrees.
Related
I need to find all vertices that makes my surface, but I only know vertices (keep them as array) and edges. I'm doing it in XY coordinate system. I need it for Unity3D project (so pseudocode or C# code will be very helpful), but any mathematic ideas are appreciated, too.
I made some pictures for example.
If I don't have convex angle in my example it's really easy - I choose any vertex (e.g. 0) and take two next vertex in the loop. It gaves me triangles 0-1-2, 0-2-3 and 0-3-4.
It's quite easy, too, if I have one convex angle. I don't know how to find which vertex is convex (any ideas?) but it doesn't seem very complicated. Then I take him and make the same algorithm as above.
Unfortunatelly my idea stopped work for more complicated shapes, e.g (I always have one shape in my project, I just draw more of them to show more complex examples):
If I have shapes like this and try to use method described above, always any triangle is out of my shape.
I think that I can use for that any mathematic. My vertices are on XY coordinates, so I can count something. I can make more vertices if I need, too, so I could have:
I was trying to describe my problem as exactly how I can. I hope my english is understable.
Please, if you have any ideas - math ideas or pseudocode ideas how to make a surface for my vertices - write. If you have any single suggestion, not concrete idea - write, too. I am looking for inspiration, ideas, anything.
I'll make two assumptions:
You don't have any particular standards of one triangulation being better than another.
You want something conceptually easy.
Pick any vertex. Connect to any other vertex such that the formed line is entirely within the polygon. This means
The other vertex is not adjacent to the original
the connecting segment doesn't cross a side of the polygon.
It's possible that there is no such vertex. If so, then move to the next vertex, iterating until you find a pair you can connect. There will be at least one such pair.
When you draw that new segment, you've also divided the polygon into two polygons, each of which has fewer vertices than the original.
Recur on each of these polygons. Your stopping case (base case) on each thread is that you don't divide a triangle.
For any shape how can I create a spiral inside it of a similar shape. This would be a similar idea to bounding (using Minkowski sum). Rather than creating the same shape inside the shape though it would be a spiral of same shape.
I found this - http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis110/13su/lectures/Spiral.java
It creates a spiral based on the parameters passed so it can be for any regular shape.
I want the above for all shapes i.e. irregular polygons too.
I am not hugely familiar with geometric terminology but I have looked up Involutes and an Internal Spiral Search Algorithm too but haven't been useful to me.
Does anyone have any idea where I'd find an algorithm such as this or at least ideas of how I'd come up with one?
this task is extremly hard to do.
need to have the boundary polygon you want to fill with spiral
I think you have it already
create new smaller polygon by shifting all lines inwards by the step.
It is similar to create stroke line around polygon. Step is the screw width so at start of polygon it is 0 and on the end it is d
remove invalid lines from the newly generated screw
Some lines on corners and curvatures will intersect. This is very hard to detect/repair reliably see
this for basics
repeat (do next screw) ... until no space for screw found
But now after the first screw the step is always d this will not necessarily fill the whole shape. For example if you have some thinner spot on shape it will be filled much more faster then the rest so there can still be some holes left.
You should detect them and handle as you see fit see
Finding holes in 2d point sets
Be aware detection if the area is filled is also not trivial
This is how this approach looks like:
[Notes]
If you forget about the spiral and want fill the interior with a zig zag or similar pattern then this is not that hard.
Spiral filling makes a lot of hard geometric problems and if you are not skilled in geometry and vector math this task could be a too big challenge for beginner or even medium skilled programmer in this field to make it work properly. That is at least my opinion (as I done this before) so handle it as such.
I worked on something like this using offsets from the polgyon based on medial axis of Voronoi diagram. It's not simple. I can't share the code as it belongs to the company I worked for and it may not exactly fit your needs.
But here are some similar things I found by other people:
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~mcmains/pubs/DAC05OffsetPolygon.pdf
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/teaching/seminar/seminar_2010-11/hsm.pdf
I came across following graph layout proposed in the paper NodeTrix :
The big blocks that are visible are nodes themselves (A sort of composite node of a sub-graph).
I see that the edges are some sort of curves which seem to not intersect too much among themselves. Also, the nodes and edges don't intersect among themselves. Paper doen't talk about it btw.
I was hoping to implement this visualization. I have following doubts:
Q1. Is this some specific algorithm to arrange Nodes-Edges so that the graph look good, as shown in this paper ? Any other algorithm in general ?
Q2. Is there some special algorithm for the curved edges shown above as well ?
It would be great if someone could figure out the exact algorithm in the above figure visually, but some general similar algorithm should also do.
One algorithm is Force-directed graph drawing. It will produce an output very different from the posted picture, but it is quite popular and might give you a place to start looking.
To be honest, I suspect that the shown graph is manually laid out.
EDIT: Answer to comment
In the example all nodes are square boxes, and the edges start/end diagonal to the sides of the boxes. A way to to this could be
Place boxes using force-direction (or likely some customized version of it, forces depend on the size of the box)
Imagine a "guide-edge" going directly between the centers of the boxes
Calculate the the places where the guide-edge intersects the boxes, and use that as the start/end points of the real, drawn edge.
Make the real edge start diagonal to the sides, and use bezier curves to draw the curve.
You probably want to represent this as some vector format, that has bezier cures built in, e.g., svg.
Given two 3d objects, how can I find if one fits inside the second (and find the location of the object in the container).
The object should be translated and rotated to fit the container - but not modified otherwise.
Additional complications:
The same situation - but look for the best fit solution, even if it's not a proper match (minimize the volume of the object that doesn't fit in the container)
Support for elastic objects - find the best fit while minimizing the "distortion" in the objects
This is a pretty general question - and I don't expect a complete solution.
Any pointers to relevant papers \ articles \ libraries \ tools would be useful
Here is one perhaps less than ideal method.
You could try fixing the position (in 3D space) of 1 shape. Placing the other shape on top of that shape. Then create links that connect one point in shape to a point in the other shape. Then simulate what happens when the links are pulled equally tight. Causing the point that isn't fixed to rotate and translate until it's stable.
If the fit is loose enough, you could use only 3 links (the bare minimum number of links for 3D) and try every possible combination. However, for tighter fit fits, you'll need more links, perhaps enough to place them on every point of the shape with the least number of points. Which means you'll some method to determine how to place the links, which is not trivial.
This seems like quite hard problem. Probable approach is to have some heuristic to suggest transformation and than check is it good one. If transformation moves object only slightly out of interior (e.g. on one part) than make slightly adjust to transformation and test it. If object is 'lot' out (e.g. on same/all axis on both sides) than make new heuristic guess.
Just an general idea for a heuristic. Make a rasterisation of an objects with same pixel size. It can be octree of an object volume. Make connectivity graph between pixels. Check subgraph isomorphism between graphs. If there is a subgraph than that position is for a testing.
This approach also supports 90deg rotation(s).
Some tests can be done even on graphs. If all volume neighbours of a subgraph are in larger graph, than object is in.
In general this is 'refined' boundary box approach.
Another solution is to project equal number of points on both objects and do a least squares best fit on the point sets. The point sets probably will not be ordered the same so iterating between the least squares best fit and a reordering of points so that the points on both objects are close to same order. The equation development for this is a lot of algebra but not conceptually complicated.
Consider one polygon(triangle) in the target object. For this polygon, find the equivalent polygon in the other geometry (source), ie. the length of the sides, angle between the edges, area should all be the same. If there's just one match, find the rigid transform matrix, that alters the vertices that way : X' = M*X. Since X' AND X are known for all the points on the matched polygons, this should be doable with linear algebra.
If you want a one-one mapping between the vertices of the polygon, traverse the edges of the polygons in the same order, and make a lookup table that maps each vertex one one poly to a vertex in another. If you have a half edge data structure of your 3d object that'll simplify this process a great deal.
If you find more than one matching polygon, traverse the source polygon from both the points, and keep matching their neighbouring polygons with the target polygons. Continue until one of them breaks, after which you can do the same steps as the one-match version.
There're more serious solutions that're listed here, but I think the method above will work as well.
What a juicy problem !. As is typical in computational geometry this problem
can be very complicated with a mismatched geometric abstraction. With all kinds of if-else cases etc.
But pick the right abstraction and the solution becomes trivial with few sub-cases.
Compute the Distance Transform of your shapes and Voilà! Your solution is trivial.
Allow me to elaborate.
The distance map of a shape on a grid (pixels) encodes the distance of the closest point on the
shape's border to that pixel. It can be computed in both directions outwards or inwards into the shape.
In this problem, the outward distance map suffices.
Step 1: Compute the distance map of both shapes D_S1, D_S2
Step 2: Subtract the distance maps. Diff = D_S1-D_S2
Step 3: if Diff has only positive values. Then your shapes can be contained in each other(+ve => S1 bigger than S2 -ve => S2 bigger than S1)
If the Diff has both positive and negative values, the shapes intersect.
There you have it. Enjoy !
There is a lot of documentation around how to detect if a marker is within a polygon in Google Maps. However, my question is how can I arbitrarily place a marker inside a polygon (ideally as far as possible from the edges)
I tried calculating the average latitude and longitude of the polygon's points, but this obviously fails in some non-concave polygons.
I also thought about calculating the area's center of mass, but obviously the same happens.
Any ideas? I would like to avoid trial-and-error approaches, even if it works 99% of the time.
There are a few different ways you could approach this, depending on what exactly you're overall goal is.
One approach would be to construct a triangulation of the polygon and place the marker inside one of the triangles. If you're not too worried about optimality you could employ a simple heuristic, like choosing the centroid of the largest triangle, although this obviously wont necessarily give you the point furthest from the polygon edges. There are a number of algorithms for polygon triangulation: ear-clipping or constrained Delaunay triangulation are probably the way to go, and a number of good libraries exist, i.e. CGAL and Triangle.
If you are interested in finding an optimal placement it might be possible to use a skeleton based approach, using either the medial-axis or the straight skeleton of the polygon. The medial-axis is the set of curves equi-distant from the polygon edges, while the straight skeleton is a related structure. Specifically, these type of structures can be used to find points which are furthest away from the edges, check this out for a label placement application for GIS using an approach based on the straight skeleton.
Hope this helps.