I am working on small project that requires me to quickly find which triangles within a set of triangles is either partially or entirely contained within a given rectangular region. I am interested in optimizing for fast searches - I am not memory limited.
This is not an area I am too familiar with, so all I've been able to do thus far is to poke around on Google for standard algorithms for dealing with this problem. The closest I've gotten to so far is to use two interval trees. This is a bit clumsy, since I have to perform a test for interval overlap between the edges of each triangle and the edges of the rectangular region in both directions x and y.
Can someone point me to any resource where the 'correct' way of dealing with this problem is?
Thanks!
Edit: I forgot to mention that the rectangular regions I am currently using are parallel to the coordinate axes x and y. For the time being, I am happy with any solution that exploits this constraint. Generally, though, a solution with completely arbitrary rectangles would be great to know about.
You can use an AABBTree (AABB stands for Axis Aligned Bounding Box tree), the
idea is to enclose each triangle in its axis aligned bounding box, then build a tree that has the initial triangles as leafs, and where upper nodes have a bounding box that is the union of the bounding boxes of its children. Then when searching which triangles have a non-empty intersection with "something", you check whether the "something" has an intersection with the bounding box of a node, and go down the tree to test its children when it's the case (recursive function).
You can find efficient implementations of AABBTrees in:
CGAL: http://doc.cgal.org/latest/AABB_tree/
the GEOGRAM library that I am writing: http://alice.loria.fr/software/geogram/doc/html/classGEO_1_1MeshFacetsAABB.html
OpCode: http://www.codercorner.com/Opcode.htm
Assuming the rectangle is axis aligned, I'd do this:
Compare the bounding box of a triangle to the region. If it is inside, the triangle is inside. If there is no overlap at all, it's not. Use an interval tree for each dimension for this step if you need to check the same set of triangles with different regions.
We have checked the two simple cases in step one, so we know the region and bounding box overlap. Check if any of the points of the triangle is inside the rectangle. If so, the triangle is inside.
Check the four sides of the rectangle with the three sides of the triangle for line segment intersections
If no preprocessing of the set of triangles is allowed, there is nothing better you can do than comparing exhaustively every triangle to the window.
To solve the triangle/rectangle overlap problem easily (or just to reason about it), you can form the Minkowski sum of the two polygons, to turn the problem in a "point-in-convex-polygon" instance.
Of course, an initial axis-aligned bounding box test is welcome.
If your window is a rotated rectangle, you can "unrotate" the whole scene to make the window axis-aligned and revert to the first problem.
Related
My current understanding of a kd-tree is; that on every node we split our points into two equally big groups for one axis.
We iterate through the individual axis until the tree is saturated.
This kind of data-structure is, of course, is interesting for raytracing applications because we don't have to search through every triangle face to test our intersection with the ray, we simply know where it would be likely that a triangle would intersect with our ray.
I have some question on how this is done.
How do we handle weird triangles where we cannot make easy splits(triangles intersecting other triangles or triangles which span the entire?
Do we even split on the triangles or do we split on the vertices?
How exactly do we test for an intersection of a ray that we send out from the camera ?
I see a couple of methods. First, we could build bounding boxes from our scene and the splitting planes and test for intersection with those boxes or we could test for intersection with the splitting planes and see where the intersection is relative to the camera
The short answer is: This all depends on your application. There are several variations of kd-trees.
How do we handle weird triangles where we cannot make easy splits?
I believe you are referring to the choice of the splitting plane for a given set of triangles. This is a pretty hard optimization problem, which is usually solved with a heuristic. E.g., you could sort the centroids of triangles along one axis and choose the median as the splitting plane. Nothing is stopping you from implementing some more intelligent criterion.
If you find that your splitting plane passes through a primitive, you have two options. Either split the primitive or add it to both subtrees. What you should do depends on your application.
Do we even split on the triangles or do we split on the vertices?
That depends on the primitives you want to add to your tree. If you want to use the tree for raycasting, then it makes sense to have the triangles in the tree. kd-trees are a very general concept that works with any kind of primitives, though. E.g., they are also widely used for point clouds.
How exactly do we test for an intersection of a ray that we send out from the camera?
You do this by traversing the tree. So, you start at the root node and check if the ray intersects with the associated bounding box (which is the entire space). Then you check which of the two subtrees are first intersected by the ray and continue to this one. And then you repeat: You test for intersection with the node's AABB (which you build incrementally from the splitting planes). If the ray does not intersect the AABB, then immediately return back to the parent node. If it does, continue to the first child. When you come back from the first child, go to the second child (unless you already found an intersection).
For some more details, I would advice to take a look at application-specific instances of kd-trees.
I am trying to write a Rigid body simulator, and during simulation, I am not only interested in finding whether two objects collide or not, but also the point as well as normal of collision. I have found lots of resources which actually says whether two OBB are colliding or not using separating axis theorem. Also I am interested in 3D representation of OBB. Now, if I know the axis with minimum overlap region for two colliding OBB, is there any way to find the point of collision and normal of collision? Also, there are two major cases of collision, first, point-face and second edge-edge.
I tried to google this problem, but almost every solution is only detecting collision with true or false.
Kindly somebody help!
Look at the scene in the direction of the motion (in other terms, apply a change of coordinates such that this direction becomes vertical, and drop the altitude). You get a 2D figure.
Considering the faces of the two boxes that face each other, you will see two hexagons each split in three parallelograms.
Then
Detect the intersections between the edges in 2D. From the section ratios along the edges, you can determine the actual z distances.
For all vertices, determine the face they fall on in the other box; and from the 3D equations, the piercing point of the viewing line into the face plane, hence the distance. (Repeat this for the vertices of A and B.)
Comparing the distances will tell you which collision happens first and give you the coordinates of the first meeting point (in the transformed system, the back to absolute coordinates).
The point-in-face problem is easy to implement as the facesare convex polygons.
We have a 3d triangulated surface and there is a point on it. How can i find the triangle which contains the point.
We can find with testing all triangles but it is slow way. I must make the algorithm faster.
Is there any searching algorithm or is there any technique about reducing searching area?
What you need is a spatial data structure, they allow those typical queries of computational geometry. Your point is a query point for the set of triangles.
You might for example calculate a minimal bounding box for each triangle and store those into a R-tree (keep a map of which mbb is for what triangle or put those triangles as leave nodes in the R-tree) and then fast lookups of the best bounding box should give you maybe not the final result, but I think it would deliver a much reduced search area (a list of matching mbbs which result in a list of triangle candidates), where you then quickly search the exact triangle (because bounding boxes and triangles differ a bit).
You could speed up the comparison by using the bounding box of each triangle to test if the point is not contained.
Use a ´bounding sphere collision detection´ algorithm to test all triangles.
This algorithm is fast, but has false positives. On all triangles that fulfill the bounding sphere test, use your algorithm to do the final collision test.
I'm trying to workout how to efficiently calculate the layout of a dynamic/random view.
The view will contain a number of circles. Each circle has a predetermined size. These sizes are all between a given maximum and minimum size.
I'm trying to find an efficient way of laying out the circles within a rect with a couple of conditions.
The circles mustn't overlap with the edge of the rect and the circles must have a minimum "spacing" between them.
The first method I came up with is to randomly generate coordinate pairs and place the biggest circle. Then randomly generate more coordinate pairs until a suitable one is generated for the next circle. And the next, and the next, and so on until all are drawn.
The problems with this are that it could potentially take a long time to complete. Each subsequent circle will take longer to place as there are fewer places that it can go.
Another problem is that it could be impossible to layout the view.
I'm sure there must be more efficient ways of doing this but I'm not sure where to begin.
The Formula must deal between the smallest possible square they need or from a other point of view, with an arrangement with the smallest possible density between the edgepoints. But your problem could be solved by sorting the circles by size and then start with the largest and arrange them step by step to the smallest because the larger are more bulky and the smaller fit easier in small corners by there nature.
Build triangles of circles, where 3 circles have a discribing space they use together. This triangle has 3 corners right? :) so messure/calc the angle of that corners and the corner with the nearest 90degree angle should be placed in a square corner, better to say the three circles should be places mirrored so that the circle with the fittest 90degree corner behind is the one who goes in the corner. If a 4th circle fits into the rest of this triangle, wonderful, if not you place exact this circle in it which is taken minimum outerspace of that triangle. because its not said that the next smaller circle is the one who fit's perfect, which also means you have a stack of not placed circles until one is found who fits better. after you find one you go upwards your circle-stack again and try to fit the next of it in one of the corners or you try to build the next triangle. and here you see how complex this is, damn! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfatti_circles
But anyway, the more one of this triangles corners is 90° the less space it would take with this 3 circles in it.
An other concept could be to think about larger circles like space who leftover a triangle in one of its corners in relation to the rectangle. This triangle has a maximum space availible for a smaller circle. If there is no perfectly fitting circle your taken square-space grows up. So as far as i think about to handle this problem with imagined triangles to compare with fitting circles in it or taking triangle ranges from the square is the solutions base.
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 !