It is simple to fill rectangle: simply make some grid. But if polygon is unconditioned the task becomes not so trivial.
Probably "regularly" can be formulated as distance between each other point would be: R ± alpha. But I'm not sure about this.
Maybe there is some known algorithm to achieve this.
Added:
I need to generate net, where no large holes, and no big gathering of the points.
Have you though about using a force-directed layout of the points?
Scatter a number of points randomly over the bounding box of your polygon, then repeatedly apply two simple rules to adjust their location:
If a point is outside of the polygon, move it the minimum possible distance so that it lies within, i.e.: to the closest point on the polygon edge.
Points repel each other with a force inversely proportional to the distance between them, i.e.: for every point, consider every other point and compute a repulsion vector that will move the two points directly apart. The vector should be large for proximate points and small for distant points. Sum the vectors and add to the point's position.
After a number of iterations the points should settle into a steady state with an even distribution over the polygon area. How quickly this state is achieved depends on the geometry of the polygon and how you've scaled the repulsive forces between the points.
You can compute a Constrained Delaunay triangulation of the polygon and use a Delaunay refinement algorithm (search with this keyword).
I have recently implemented refinement
in the Fade2D library, http://www.geom.at/fade2d/html/. It takes an
arbitrary polygon without selfintersections as well as an upper bound on the radius of the circumcircle of each resulting triangle. This feature is not contained in the current release 1.02 yet, but I can compile the current development version for Linux or Win64 if you want to try that.
Related
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.
I have a 3D mesh consisting of triangle polygons. My mesh can be either oriented left or right:
I'm looking for a method to detect mesh direction: right vs left.
So far I tried to use mesh centroid:
Compare centroid to bounding-box (b-box) center
See if centroid is located left of b-box center
See if centroid is located right of b-box center
But the problem is that the centroid and b-box center don't have a reliable difference in most cases.
I wonder what is a quick algorithm to detect my mesh direction.
Update
An idea proposed by #collapsar is ordering Convex Hull points in clockwise order and investigating the longest edge:
UPDATE
Another approach as suggested by #YvesDaoust is to investigate two specific regions of the mesh:
Count the vertices in two predefined regions of the bounding box. This is a fairly simple O(N) procedure.
Unless your dataset is sorted in some way, you can't be faster than O(N). But if the point density allows it, you can subsample by taking, say, every tenth point while applying the procedure.
You can as well keep your idea of the centroid, but applying it also in a subpart.
The efficiency of an algorithm to solve your problem will depend on the data structures that represent your mesh. You might need to be more specific about them in order to obtain a sufficiently performant procedure.
The algorithms are presented in an informal way. For a more rigorous analysis, math.stackexchange might be a more suitable place to ask (or another contributor is more adept to answer ...).
The algorithms are heuristic by nature. Proposals 1 and 3 will work fine for meshes whose local boundary's curvature is mostly convex locally (skipping a rigorous mathematical definition here). Proposal 2 should be less dependent on the mesh shape (and can be easily tuned to cater for ill-behaved shapes).
Proposal 1 (Convex Hull, 2D)
Let M be the set of mesh points, projected onto a 'suitable' plane as suggested by the graphics you supplied.
Compute the convex hull CH(M) of M.
Order the n points of CH(M) in clockwise order relative to any point inside CH(M) to obtain a point sequence seq(P) = (p_0, ..., p_(n-1)), with p_0 being an arbitrary element of CH(M). Note that this is usually a by-product of the convex hull computation.
Find the longest edge of the convex polygon implied by CH(M).
Specifically, find k, such that the distance d(p_k, p_((k+1) mod n)) is maximal among all d(p_i, p_((i+1) mod n)); 0 <= i < n;
Consider the vector (p_k, p_((k+1) mod n)).
If the y coordinate of its head is greater than that of its tail (ie. its projection onto the line ((0,0), (0,1)) is oriented upwards) then your mesh opens to the left, otherwise to the right.
Step 3 exploits the condition that the mesh boundary be mostly locally convex. Thus the convex hull polygon sides are basically short, with the exception of the side that spans the opening of the mesh.
Proposal 2 (bisector sampling, 2D)
Order the mesh points by their x coordinates int a sequence seq(M).
split seq(M) into 2 halves, let seq_left(M), seq_right(M) denote the partition elements.
Repeat the following steps for both point sets.
3.1. Select randomly 2 points p_0, p_1 from the point set.
3.2. Find the bisector p_01 of the line segment (p_0, p_1).
3.3. Test whether p_01 lies within the mesh.
3.4. Keep a count on failed tests.
Statistically, the mesh point subset that 'contains' the opening will produce more failures for the same given number of tests run on each partition. Alternative test criteria will work as well, eg. recording the average distance d(p_0, p_1) or the average length of (p_0, p_1) portions outside the mesh (both higher on the mesh point subset with the opening). Cut off repetition of step 3 if the difference of test results between both halves is 'sufficiently pronounced'. For ill-behaved shapes, increase the number of repetitions.
Proposal 3 (Convex Hull, 3D)
For the sake of completeness only, as your problem description suggests that the analysis effectively takes place in 2D.
Similar to Proposal 1, the computations can be performed in 3D. The convex hull of the mesh points then implies a convex polyhedron whose faces should be ordered by area. Select the face with the maximum area and compute its outward-pointing normal which indicates the direction of the opening from the perspective of the b-box center.
The computation gets more complicated if there is much variation in the side lengths of minimal bounding box of the mesh points, ie. if there is a plane in which most of the variation of mesh point coordinates occurs. In the graphics you've supplied that would be the plane in which the mesh points are rendered assuming that their coordinates do not vary much along the axis perpendicular to the plane.
The solution is to identify such a plane and project the mesh points onto it, then resort to proposal 1.
I'm struggling with a 3D problem for which I'm trying to find an efficient algorithm.
I have a bounding box with given width, height, and depth.
I also have a list of spheres. That is, a center coordinate (xi,yi,zi) and radius ri for each sphere.
The spheres are guaranteed to fit within the bounding box, and to not overlap eachother.
So my situation is like this:
Now I have a new sphere with radius r, which I have to fit inside the bounding box, not overlapping any of the previous spheres.
I also have a target point T = (x,y,z) and my goal is to fit this new sphere (given the conditions above) as close as possible to this target point.
I'm trying to construct an efficient algorithm to find an optimal position for the new sphere. Optimal as in: as close to the target point as possible. Or a "false" result if there is no space to fit this new sphere between or around the existing ones anywhere within the bounding box.
I have thought of all sorts of complex approaches, such as building some sort of parametric description of the remaining volume, starting with the bounding box and subtracting the existing spheres one by one. But it doesn't seem to lead me towards a workable solution.
Note that there are a lot of known 'sphere packing' algorithms, but they tend to just fill volumes with random spheres. Also they often use a trial and error approach, just doing a certain amount of random attempts and then terminate.
Whereas I have a given specific new sphere size, and I need to fit that in (or find out that it's not possible).
A possible approach is by computing the "distance map" of the spheres, i.e. the function that returns for every point (x, y, z) the distance to the closest sphere, which is also the distance to the closest center minus the radius of the corresponding sphere. The map is made of the intersection of (hyper)conical surfaces.
Then you can explore the distance map around the target point and find the closest point with a value that exceeds the target radius.
If I am right, the distance map is directly related to the additively weighted Voronoi diagram of the sphere centers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_Voronoi_diagram), and the vertices of the diagram correspond to local maxima. Hence the closest Voronoi vertex with a value that exceeds the target radius will give a solution.
Unfortunately, the construction of this diagram won't be a barrel of laughs. Check the article "Euclidean Voronoi diagram of 3D balls and its computation
via tracing edges" and its bibliography.
A possibly workable solution to estimate the distance map is by discretizing space in a regular grid of cubes, and for every cube obtain a lower and an upper bound of the distance function.
For a single given sphere and a given cube, it is possible to find the minimum and maximum value analytically. Then considering all spheres, you can find the smallest maximum and smallest minimum, which are an upper and lower bound of the true distance (the largest minimum won't do). Then you keep all the spheres such that the minimum remains below that upper bound and you get a (hopefully short) list of candidates.
Here you can check the distances to the spheres in the list, and if the upper bound is smaller than the target radius, you can drop the cube. If you find an upper bound above the target radius, you have found a solution.
Otherwise, if the uncertainty range on the distance function is too large, subdivide the cube in smaller ones for a more accurate estimate of the upper and lower bounds.
To obtain a solution close to the target point, you will visit the cubes by increasing distance from the target (using nested digital spheres), until you find a match.
A key point in this process is to quickly find the spheres closest to a given cube, for the initial estimates. A data structure such as a kD-tree or similar might be helpful.
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.
I have an application that creates an approximation to sphere by subdividing an icosahedron. The Cartesian vertex coordinates are converted to spherical coordinates so that all vertices sit on the surface of a unit sphere.
What I need to do next is find the nearest vertex to an arbitrary point on the surface of the sphere. I have come up with two simple algorithms...
Brute force search - will be OK for a small number of vertices, but will be excessive for finer subdivisions.
Sorted / Indexed search - sort the vertices into some form of order by azimuth and inclination and then create a rough index to speed up a brute force search by limiting its scope.
I was wondering if there was a more subtle, and hopefully higher performing algorithm that I can use instead of one of the two above.
Update 1: I have just recalled that for another part of the application the vertices store information about their neighbours. My new algorithm is
Pick an arbitrary start vertex. Find which of its neighbours has a smaller distance to the point to locate. Use this neighbour as the new start vertex. Repeat until none of the vertex's neighbours has a smaller distance to the point. This vertex is the closest to the point.
Scanning through the responses, I think I may be off base, but what you're after is simple. I think.
Since you're dealing with just points that sit on the sphere, you can just drop a line from the vertex to the center of the sphere, drop another line from the arbitrary point to the center and solve for the angle created between them. Smaller is better. The easiest and cheapest way I think would be the dot product. The angle basically falls out of it. Here's a link about it: http://www.kynd.info/library/mathandphysics/dotProduct_01/
For testing them, I would suggest picking a vertex, testing it, then testing its neighbors. It SHOULD always be in the direction of the smallest neighbor (angle should always decrease as you get closer to the vertex you're after)
Anyhow, I hope that's what you're after.
Oh, and I came across this page while looking for your subdivision algorithm. Hard to find; if you could post a link to it I think it would help out a lot more than just myself.
One of possible solutions is to build BSP tree for vertices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning
If the icosahedron has one vertex at the north pole and the opposite vertex at the south pole then there are 2 groups each of 5 vertices which are in planes parallel to the equator. With a little geometry I figure that these planes are at N/S 57.3056° (decimals, not dd.mmss). This divides your icosahedron into 4 latitude zones;
anything north (south) of 28.6528° is closest to the vertex at the nearer pole;
anything between the equator and north (south) 28.6528° is closer to one of the 5 vertices in that zone.
I'm working this as a navigator would, arcs measured in degrees and denoted north and south; if you prefer a more mathematical convention you can translate this all to your version of spherical coordinates quite easily.
I suspect, though I haven't coded it, that checking the distance to 5 vertices and selecting the nearest will be quicker than more sophisticated approaches based on partitioning the surface of the sphere into the projections of the faces of the icosahedron, or projecting the points on the sphere back onto the icosahedron and working the problem in that coordinate system.
For example, the approach you suggest in your update 1 will require the computation of the distance to 6 vertices (the first, arbitrarily chosen one and its 5 neighbours) at least.
It doesn't matter (if you only want to know which vertex is nearest) whether you calculate distances in Cartesian or spherical coordinates. However, calculation in Cartesian coordinates avoids a lot of calls to trigonometric functions.
If, on the other hand, you haven't arranged your icosahedron with vertices at the poles of your sphere, well, you should have !