Say I have a polygon. It can be a convex one or not, it doesn't matter, but it doesn't have holes. It also has "inner" vertices and edges, meaning that it is partitioned.
Is there any kind of popular/known algorithm or standard procedures for when I want to check if a point is inside that kind of polygon?
I'm asking because Winding Number and Ray Casting aren't accurate in this case
Thanks in advance
You need to clarify what you mean by 'inner vertices and edges'. Let's take a very general case and hope that you find relevance.
The ray casting (point in polygon) algorithm shoots off a ray counting the intersections with the sides of the POLYGON (Odd intersections = inside, Even = outside).
Hence it accurately gives the correct result regardless of whether you start from inside the disjoint trapezoidal hole or the triangular hole (inner edges?) or even if a part of the polygon is completely seperated and/or self intersecting.
However, in what order do you feed the vertices of the polygon such that all the points are evaluated correctly?
Though this is code specific, if you're using an implementation that is counting every intersection with the sides of the polygon then this approach will work -
- Break the master polygon into polygonal components. eg - trapezoidal hole is a polygonal component.
- Start with (0,0) vertex (doesn't matter whether (0,0) actually lies wrt your polygon) followed by the first component' vertices, repeating its first vertex after the last vertex.
- Include another (0,0) vertex.
- Include the next component , repeating its first vertex after the last vertex.
- Repeat the above two steps for each component.
- End with a final (0,0) vertex.
2 component eg- Let the vertices of the two components be (1x,1y), (2x,2y), (3x,3y) and (Ax,Ay), (Bx,By), (Cx,Cy). Where (Ax,Ay), (Bx,By), (Cx,Cy) could be anything from a disjoint triangular hole, intersecting triangle or separated triangle.
Hence , the vertices of a singular continous polygon which is mathematically equivalent to the 2 components is -
(0,0),(1x,1y),(2x,2y),(3x,3y),(1x,1y),(0,0),(Ax,Ay),(Bx,By),(Cx,Cy),(Ax,Ay),(0,0)
To understand how it works, try drawing this mathematically equivalent polygon on a scratch pad.-
1. Mark all the vertices but don't join them yet.
2. Mark the repeated vertices separately also. Do this by marking them close to the original points, but not on them. (at a distance e, where e->0 (tends to/approaches) ) (to help visualize)
3. Now join all the vertices in the right order (as in the example above)
You will notice that this forms a continuous polygon and only becomes disjoint at the e=0 limit.
You can now send this mathematically equivalent polygon to your ray casting function (and maybe even winding number function?) without any issues.
Related
Given two convex polygons P, Q separated by a line, how can I find their common tangents?
There should be 4 total.
Geometry isn't my strong side so any help will be appreciated :)
Any tangent will be generated from (at least) one point on each polygon. The tangent forms a half-space for each polygon, containing that entire polygon; different tangents are generated by requiring that each polygon be above or below the tangent line.
Whenever you have a problem involving two convex polygons, the algorithm probably involves "pick a point on each one, then iterate." This algorithm is no different.
What you do, basically, is start with a random guess, and refine. Pick a vertex on each polygon and calculate the line through the two vertices. Look at polygon A and see whether either of the two neighboring vertices is on the wrong side of the line. If one is, replace the current vertex with that vertex. Then do the same check on polygon B. Then, if you updated either vertex, repeat. Eventually the lines will converge to tangents with each vertex the extremal one in the desired direction.
This question is an extension on some computation details of this question.
Suppose one has a set of (potentially overlapping) circles, and one wishes to compute the area this set of circles covers. (For simplicity, one can assume some precomputation steps have been made, such as getting rid of circles included entirely in other circles, as well as that the circles induce one connected component.)
One way to do this is mentioned in Ants Aasma's and Timothy's Shields' answers, being that the area of overlapping circles is just a collection of circle slices and polygons, both of which the area is easy to compute.
The trouble I'm encountering however is the computation of these polygons. The nodes of the polygons (consisting of circle centers and "outer" intersection points) are easy enough to compute:
And at first I thought a simple algorithm of picking a random node and visiting neighbors in clockwise order would be sufficient, but this can result in the following "outer" polygon to be constructed, which is not part of the correct polygons.
So I thought of different approaches. A Breadth First Search to compute minimal cycles, but I think the previous counterexample can easily be modified so that this approach results in the "inner" polygon containing the hole (and which is thus not a correct polygon).
I was thinking of maybe running a Las Vegas style algorithm, taking random points and if said point is in an intersection of circles, try to compute the corresponding polygon. If such a polygon exists, remove circle centers and intersection points composing said polygon. Repeat until no circle centers or intersection points remain.
This would avoid ending up computing the "outer" polygon or the "inner" polygon, but would introduce new problems (outside of the potentially high running time) e.g. more than 2 circles intersecting in a single intersection point could remove said intersection point when computing one polygon, but would be necessary still for the next.
Ultimately, my question is: How to compute such polygons?
PS: As a bonus question for after having computed the polygons, how to know which angle to consider when computing the area of some circle slice, between theta and 2PI - theta?
Once we have the points of the polygons in the right order, computing the area is a not too difficult.
The way to achieve that is by exploiting planar duality. See the Wikipedia article on the doubly connected edge list representation for diagrams, but the gist is, given an oriented edge whose right face is inside a polygon, the next oriented edge in that polygon is the reverse direction of the previous oriented edge with the same head in clockwise order.
Hence we've reduced the problem to finding the oriented edges of the polygonal union and determining the correct order with respect to each head. We actually solve the latter problem first. Each intersection of disks gives rise to a quadrilateral. Let's call the centers C and D and the intersections A and B. Assume without loss of generality that the disk centered at C is not smaller than the disk centered at D. The interior angle formed by A→C←B is less than 180 degrees, so the signed area of that triangle is negative if and only if A→C precedes B→C in clockwise order around C, in turn if and only if B→D precedes A→D in clockwise order around D.
Now we determine which edges are actually polygon boundaries. For a particular disk, we have a bunch of angle intervals around its center from before (each sweeping out the clockwise sector from the first endpoint to the second). What we need amounts to a more complicated version of the common interview question of computing the union of segments. The usual sweep line algorithm that increases the cover count whenever it scans an opening endpoint and decreases the cover count whenever it scans a closing endpoint can be made to work here, with the adjustment that we need to initialize the count not to 0 but to the proper cover count of the starting angle.
There's a way to do all of this with no trigonometry, just subtraction and determinants and comparisons.
Currently I am trying to get Voronoi polygons dividing a plane of a certain size (e.g. 1000x1000 with 500 random points).
For this purpose, I used Delaunay's triangulation - Bowyer Watson's algorithm. Thanks to this, I am able to generate points and properly connect the edges included in the Voronoi diagram. Unfortunately, in my case, I need a list of polygons (of which each polygon contains a list of its edges).
I tried to create a naive algorithm that would take the edges one by one and look for the next ones to create a final polygon and so on - unfortunately without success. I was also thinking about taking the vertices of the triangles and creating a circle until the polygon is formed (from the existing edges), but I am not sure if this is a good solution?
Is there any way to do it? Or should I use a different algorithm to get the Voronoi polygon list?
I have not found a suitable solution to this problem on the Internet, if there is one, I will be grateful for the link
Select E an arbitrary edge
Add vertices in E to polygon
Select point P slightly to one side of E
If point inside plane
Select one vertex of selected edge
Select E2 new edge from vertex with smallest angle on side with point P
Add second vertex in E2 to polygon
Repeat last two steps until reach other vertex in E
Add polygon to solution, if not already included
Repeat with point on other side of edge
Repeat until all edges processed
I am working with several convex polygons that overlap each other and I need to combine them back together to form one single polygon that may be convex or concave.
The problem is always as follows:
1) The polygons that I need to merge together are always convex.
2) The vertices of each polygon are defined in clockwise order.
3) The polygons are never in any specific order.
4) The final polygon can only be simple convex or concave polygon, i.e. no self-intersection, no duplicate vertices or holes in the shape.
Here is an example of the kind of polygons that I am working with.
![overlapping convex polygons]"image removed")
My current approach is to start from the first polygon and vertex by vertex I loop through all vertices of all of the polygons to find overlap. If there is no overlap, I store the vertex for the final outline and continue.
Upon finding overlapping vertices, I determine which polygon to continue to by measuring the angles of the possible paths and by choosing the one that leads towards the outside of the shape.
This method works until I encounter polygons that do not have vertices overlapping each other, but instead one polygon's vertex is overlapping another polygon's side, as is the case with the rectangle in the image.
I am currently planning on solving these situations by running line intersect checks for all shapes that I have not yet processed, but I am convinced that this cannot be the easiest or the best method in terms of performance.
Does someone know how I should approach this problem in a more efficient manner and/or universal manner?
I solved this issue and I'm posting the answer here in case someone else runs into this issue as well.
My first step was to implement a pre-processing loop based on trincot's suggestions.
I calculated the minimum and maximum x and y bounds for each individual shape.
I used these values to determine all overlapping shapes and I stored a simple array for each shape that I could later use to only look at shapes that can overlap each other.
Then, for the actual loop that determines the outline of the final polygon:
I start from the first shape and simply compare its vertices to those of the nearby shapes. If there is at least one vertex that isn't shared by another vertex, it must be on the outer edge and the loop starts from there. If there are only overlapping vertices, then I add the first shape to a table for all checked shapes and repeat this process with another shape until I find a vertex that is on the outer edge.
Once the starting vertex is found, the main loop will check the vertices of the starting shape one by one and measure how far from the given vertex is from every nearby shapes' edges. If the distance is zero, then the vertex either overlaps with another shape's vertex or the vertex lies on the side of another shape.
Upon finding the aforementioned type of vertex, I add the previous shape's number to the table of checked shapes so that it isn't checked again. Then, I check if there are other shapes that share this particular vertex. If there are, then I determine the outermost shape and continue from there, starting back from step 2.
Once all shapes have been checked, I check that all non-overlapping vertices from the starting shape were indeed added to the outline. If they weren't, I add them at the end.
There may be computationally faster methods, but I found this one to be simple to write, that it meets all of my requirements and it is fast enough for my needs.
Given a vertex, you could speed up the search of an "overlapping" vertex or edge as follows:
Finding vertices
Assuming that the coordinates are exact, in the sense that if two vertices overlap, they have exactly the same x and y coordinates, without any "error" of imprecision, then it would be good to first create a hash by x-coordinate, and then for each x-entry you would have a hash by y-coordinate. The value of that inner hash would be a list of polygons that have that vertex.
That structure can be built in O(n) time, and will allow you to find a matching vertex in constant time.
Only if that gives no match, you would go to the next algorithm:
Finding edges
In a pre-processing step (only once), create a segment tree for these polygons where a "segment" corresponds to a min/max x-coordinate range for a particular polygon.
Given a vertex, use the segment tree to find the polygons that are in the right x-coordinate range, i.e. where the x-coordinate of the vertex is within the min/max range of x-coordinates of the polygon.
Iterate those polygons, and eliminate those that do not have an y-coordinate range that has the y-coordinate of the vertex.
If no polygons remain, the vertex does not participate in any edge of another polygon.
You cannot get more than one polygon here, since that would mean another polygon shares the vertex, which is a case already covered by the hash-based algorithm.
If you get just one polygon, then continue your search by going through the edges of that polygon to find a match -- which is what you already planned on doing (line intersect check), but now you would only need to do it for one polygon.
You could speed that line intersect check up a little bit by first filtering the edges to those that have the right x-range. For convex polygons you would end up with at most two edges. At most one of those two will have the right y-range. If you get such an edge, check whether the vertex is really on that edge.
At the entrance, two polygons are given (the coordinates of the vertices of these polygons are listed in the order of their traversal; however, the traversal order for different polygon angles can be chosen different). Can one polygon be transformed into another using only parallel translation and proportional scaling?
I have following idea
So, find some common peak for two polygons and make the transfer of one polygon so that these vertices lie on one point then Scaling so that the neighboring point matches the corresponding point of another polygon, but I think it's wrong , at least I can't write it in code
Is there some special formula or theorem for this problem?
I would solve it like this.
Find the necessary parallel transport.
Find the necessary scaling.
See if they are the same polygon now.
So to start take the vertex that it farthest to the left, and if there is a tie, the one that is farthest down. Find that for both polygons. Use parallel transport to put that vertex at the origin for both.
Now take the vertex that is farthest to the right, and if there is a tie, the one that is farthest up. Find that for both polygons. If it is not at the same slope, then they are different. If it is, then scale one so that the points match.
Now see if all of the points match. If not, they are different. Otherwise the answer is yes.
Compute the axis-aligned bounding boxes of the two polygons.
If the aspect ratios do not match, the answer is negative. Otherwise the ratio of corresponding sides is your scaling factor. The translation is obtained by linking the top left corners and the transformation equations are
X = s.(x - xtl) + Xtl
Y = s.(y - ytl) + Ytl
where s is the scaling factor and (xtl, ytl), (Xtl, Ytl) are the corners.
Now choose a vertex of the first polygon, predict the coordinates in the other and find the matching vertex. If you can't, the answer is negative. Otherwise, you can compare the remaining vertices*.
*I assume that the polygons do not have overlapping vertices. If they can have arbitrary self-overlaps, I guess that you have to try matching all vertices, with all cyclic permutations.