I need an algorithm to re-triangulate a given 3D solid object.
Input: A triangular mesh
Output: A new triangular mesh where the triangles - as far as possible - have equal edge lengths. Some tolerance is allowed.
Currently I reflect on a clustering algorithm in order to distribute points
equally over the surface. Then I could use a 2D Delaunay triangulation and
project the triangles to the surface. But this is just a vague idea, not an
algorithm. It would be great if somebody could suggest an algorithm or a
reference to related scientific work.
CGAL provides a surface meshing algorithm that can be used for remeshing.
The documentation page is here.
You can directly try it in the demo. On windows precompiled demo is available here. You'll also need the following dll's.
References to scientific publications are available on the aforementioned page.
Related
I have a program that visualizes triangular meshes and allows the users to draw on the meshes using a pen. I want to have a "snapping" mode in my system. The snapping mode performs drawing corrections for the user in the sense that the user-drawn lines are snapped to the nearest edge (or the silhouette) of that part of the mesh.
I'm looking for an algorithm that compute the edges visible on the mesh from a given point of view. By edges, I'm referring to the outlines of the shape: corner points and the lines between them (similar to the definition of an edge in computer vision/image processing -- such as Canny edges).
So far I've thought of two approaches for this:
Edge detection: so far I've only found this paper. Their method is understandable, yet the implementation is not trivial (due to tensor computations and some ambiguity in their explanations). The problem with this approach is that it produces "edge strength values" which is a value in the range [0, 1] for every vertex. The value of 1 indicates an edge vertex with a high confidence. This introduces extra thresholding parameters in the system which I'd rather not have. Their output looks like this (range [0, 1] scaled to [0, 65535]):
Rendering or non-photorealistic methods such as the one asked in this question or this paper. They seem to be able to create the silhouette that I'm after as can be seen below:
I'm not a graphics expert and as of yet I don't know whether their methods can be used for computation of the feature lines rather than rendering.
I was wondering if anybody has any ideas about a good algorithm for what I want to do. Since the system is very interactive, the performance is important. The snapping feature does not have to be enabled all the time (therefore, if the method is computationally expensive, some delay in when "snapping enabled" mode is toggled can be tolerated while the algorithm is computing the edges.) Also, if you know of any implementation (preferably open source), I'd be grateful if you could share it with me.
There are two types of edges that you want to detect:
silhouette edges are viewpoint dependent, they correspond to the places where the line of sight tangents the surfaces. With a triangulated model, they are easy to determine, as they are shared by a front-facing triangle and a back-facing one.
"angular" edges are viewpoint independent and formed by a discontinuity in the tangent plane direction. As a triangulated model has itself this kind of discontinuity, there is no exact criterion to find them. Just set a threshold on the angle formed by two triangles. This threshold must be such that smooth patches do not trigger.
By this approach, you will find the wanted edges in 3D.
This is not enough, as part of them are hidden by other surfaces. You have the option of integrating them as edges in the 3D model and letting the rendering engine do its job, or, if you have the courage, to implement an hidden lines removal algorithm. (The wikipedia link is a little terse.)
Since posting the question, something else came into my head. Since 2D edge detection is a very well-studied problem, one way of tackling the problem is performing 2D edge detection on the projection image of the mesh.
In other words, given a specific view of the mesh, one could generate a 2D image. A 2D edge detection algorithm (such as Canny edge detector) could then be run on the 2D image and the results can be back-projected to 3D to determine the silhouettes of the mesh in question. One possible advantage of this is simplicity!
Edit (2017):
Even though I moved away from this, I returned to this problem again for a different purpose. To anybody else looking into this problem: there is a paper that talks about various contours from meshes that's worth reading (the paper is "Suggestive Contours for Conveying Shape" by DeCarlo et al.).
Working implementation of the methods discussed in the paper are available here.
I have spent time looking for information on the best algorithm to create a nesting of irregular polygons in 2D using manual and automatic positioning. I need to use such an algorithm in the context of CAD/CAM software. Here are the real possibilities I've found so far:
Separating Axis Theorem: is a fairly quick and simple algorithm to implement, but the drawback I find with it is that it only works with convex polygons. To work with concave polygons, a convex decomposition would need to be done first. This implies an increase in the run-time and the implementation of a new algorithm that decomposes the concave polygon into convex polygons.
Nesting by a power function: calculating the partial derivatives in the X and Y axes, you could get the escape direction you should take a polygon so that there is a collision between the two polygons. This function of energy and I tested and the three major problems that I have encountered are: first obtaining local minima , second nesting when the collision occurs over a piece and finally the execution time is very high.
Using no-fit polygon: use the no-fit polygon to the nesting can be somewhat interesting. I have read several papers on the subject although there are very few online documentation on it. Not sure if it can really be a useful choice. I still have several doubts on the details of this approach.
Any idea which of these algorithms to choose? Or if you know any other options that can be used? I'm a little confused :-) .
Thank you very much.
Can someone point me to a reference implementation on how to construct a (multiplicatively and/or additively) weighted voronoi diagram, which is preferably based on Fortune's voronoi algorithm?
My goal:
Given a set of points(each point has a weight) and a set of boundary edges(usually a rectangle) I want to construct a weighted voronoi diagram using either python or the processing.org-framework. Here is an example.
What I have worked on so far:
So far I have implemented Fortune's algorithm as well as the "centroidal voronoi tessellation" presented in Michael Balzer's paper. Algorithm 3 states how the weights need to be adjusted, however, when I implement this my geometry does not work anymore. To fix this the sweep-line algorithm has to be updated to take weights into account, but I have been unable to do this so far.
Hence I would like to see how other people solved this problem.
For additively weighted Voronoi Diagram: Remember that a power diagram in dimension n is only a(n unweighted) Voronoi diagram in dimension n+1.
For that, just recall that the Voronoi diagram of a point set is invariant if you add any constant to the coordinates, and that the weighted Voronoi diagram can thus be written as a non weighted Voronoi diagram using the coordinates, for example in 2D lifted to 3D:
(x_i, y_i, sqrt(C - w_i))
where w_i is the weight of the seed, and C is any arbitrarily large constant (in practice, one just small enough such that C-w_i is positive).
Once your diagram is computed, just discard the last component.
So, basically, you only need to find a library that is able to handle Voronoi diagrams in dimension n+1 compared to your problem. CGAL can do that. This also makes the implementation extremely easy.
This computation is not easy, but it is available in CGAL. See the manual pages here.
See also the Effective Computational Geometry project, which employs and
supports CGAL:
There is little `off-the-shelf' open source code out there, for the case where distances to the centers are weighted with a multiplicative factor.
To my knowledge, none of the current CGAL packages covers this case.
Takashi Ohyama's beautifully colorful website provides java implementations
http://www.nirarebakun.com/voro/emwvoro.html
for up to 100 points with a SIMPLE algorithm (Euclidean and Manhattan distances).
There is also a paper describing this simple intersection algorithm and an approximate implementation within O(n^3) time, as a plugin to TerraView.
However, I cannot find the source of this plugin in the TerraView / TerraLib repository:
http://www.geoinfo.info/geoinfo2011/papers/mauricio1.pdf
Aurenhammer and Edelsbrunner describe an optimal n^2 time algorithm, but I'm unaware of available code of that.
If you are comfortable digging into Octave, you could reference the code provided in their library.
I'm looking for a library or a paper that describes how to determine if one triangular mesh intersects another.
Interestingly I am coming up empty. If there is some way to do it in CGAL, it is eluding me.
It seems like it clearly should be possible, because triangle intersection is possible and because each mesh contains a finite number of triangles. But I assume there must be a better way to do it than the obvious O(n*m) approach where one mesh has n triangles and the other has m triangles.
The way we usually do it using CGAL is with CGAL::box_intersection_d.
You can make it by mixing this example with this one.
EDIT:
Since CGAL 4.12 there is now the function CGAL::Polygon_mesh_processing::do_intersect().
The book Real-Time Collision Detection has some good suggestions for implementing such algorithms. The basic approach is to use spatial partitioning or bounding volumes to reduce the number of tri-tri intersection tests that you need to perform.
There are a number of good academic packages that address this problem including the Proximity Query Package, and the other work of the GAMMA research group at University of North Carolina, SWIFT, I-COLLIDE, and RAPID are all well known. Check that the licenses on these libraries are acceptable.
The Open Dynamics Engine (ODE), is a physics engine that contains optimized implementations of a large number of intersection primitives. You can check out the documentation for the triangle-triangle intersection test on their wiki.
While it isn't exactly what you're looking for, I believe that this is also possible with CGAL - Tree of Triangles, for Intersection and Distance Queries
I think the search term you are missing is overlay. For example, here is a web page on Surface Mesh Overlay. That site has a short bibliography, all by the same authors.
Here is another paper on the topic: "Overlay mesh construction using interleaved spanning trees,"
INFOCOM 2004: Twenty-third Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.
See also the GIS SE question, "Performing Overlay of Two Triangulated Irregular Networks (TIN)."
To add to the other answers, there are also techniques involving the 3D Minkowski sum of convex polyhedra - concave polyhedra can be decomposed into convex parts. Check out this.
In libigl, we wrap up cgal's CGAL::box_intersection_dto intersect a mesh with vertices V and faces F with another mesh with vertices U and faces G, storing pairs of intersecting facets as rows in IF:
igl::intersect_other(V,F,U,G,false,IF);
This will ignore self-intersections. For completeness, I'll mention that we also support self-intersections in a separate function:
igl::self_intersect(V,F,...,IF);
One of the approaches is to construct a bounding volume hierarchy BVH (e.g. AABB-tree) for each mesh.
Then one will need to find whether there is a pair of intersecting triangles from two meshes, and it will be much faster (at best logarithmic time complexity) using constructed hierarchies than checking every possible pair of triangles from two meshes.
For example, you can look at open-source library MeshLib where this algorithm is implemented in findCollidingTriangles function, which must be called with firstIntersectionOnly=true argument to find just the fact of collision instead of all colliding triangle pairs.
I have a set of 3d points that approximate a surface. Each point, however, are subject to some error. Furthermore, the set of points contain a lot more points than is actually needed to represent the underlying surface.
What I am looking for is an algorithm to create a new (much smaller) set of points representing a simplified, smoother version of the surface (pardon for not having a better definition than "simplified, smoother"). The underlying surface is not a mathematical one so I'm not hoping to fit the data set to some mathematical function.
Instead of dealing with it as a point cloud, I would recommend triangulating a mesh using Delaunay triangulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaunay_triangulation
Then decimate the mesh. You can research decimation algorithms, but you can get pretty good quick and dirty results with an algorithm that just merges adjacent tris that have similar normals.
I think you are looking for 'Level of detail' algorithms.
A simple one to implement is to break your volume (surface) into some number of sub-volumes. From the points in each sub-volume, choose a representative point (such as the one closest to center, or the closest to the average, or the average etc). use these points to redraw your surface.
You can tweak the number of sub-volumes to increase/decrease detail on the fly.
I'd approach this by looking for vertices (points) that contribute little to the curvature of the surface. Find all the sides emerging from each vertex and take the dot products of pairs (?) of them. The points representing very shallow "hills" will subtend huge angles (near 180 degrees) and have small dot products.
Those vertices with the smallest numbers would then be candidates for removal. The vertices around them will then form a plane.
Or something like that.
Google for Hugues Hoppe and his "surface reconstruction" work.
Surface reconstruction is used to find a meshed surface to fit the point cloud; however, this method yields lots of triangles. You can then apply mesh a reduction technique to reduce the polygon count in a way to minimize error. As an example, you can look at OpenMesh's decimation methods.
OpenMesh
Hugues Hoppe
There exist several different techniques for point-based surface model simplification, including:
clustering;
particle simulation;
iterative simplification.
See the survey:
M. Pauly, M. Gross, and L. P. Kobbelt. Efficient simplification of point-
sampled surfaces. In Proceedings of the conference on Visualization’02,
pages 163–170, Washington, DC, 2002. IEEE.
unless you parametrise your surface in some way i'm not sure how you can decide which points carry similar information (and can thus be thrown away).
i guess you can choose a bunch of points at random to get rid of, but that doesn't sound like what you want to do.
maybe points near each other (for some definition of 'near') can be considered to contain similar information, and so reduced to single representatives for each such group.
could you give some more details?
It's simpler to simplify a point cloud without the constraints of mesh triangles and indices.
smoothing and simplification are different tasks though. To simplify the cloud you should first get rid of noise artefacts by making a profile of the kind of noise that you have, it's frequency and directional caracteristics and do a noise profile compared type reduction. good normal vectors are helfpul for that.
here is a document about 5-6 simplifications using delauney, voronoi, and k nearest neighbour maths:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.9640&rep=rep1&type=pdf
A later version from 2008:
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/research/2008/30-705.pdf
here is a recent c++ version:
https://github.com/tudelft3d/masbcpp/blob/master/src/simplify.cpp