Related
I'm developping a tool for radiotherapy inverse planning based in a pencil-beam approach. An important step in these methods (particularly in dose calculation) is a ray-tracing from many sources and one of the most used algorithms is Siddon's one (here there is a nice short description http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2014/poster/pdf/P4218_CT_reconstruction_iterative_algebraic.pdf). Now, I will try to simplify my question:
The input data is a CT image (a 3D matrix with values) and some source positions around the image. You can imagine a cube and many points around, all at same distance but different orientation angles, where the radiation rays come from. Each ray will go through the volume and a value is assigned to each voxel according to the distance from the source. The advantage of Siddon's algorithm is that the length is calculated on-time during the iterative process of the ray-tracing. However, I know that Bresenham's algorithm is an efficient way to evaluate the path from one point to another in a matrix. Thus, the length from the source to a specific voxel could be easily calculated as the euclidean distance two points, even during Bresenham's iterative process.
So then, knowing that both are methods quite old already and efficient, there is a definitive advantage of using Siddon instead of Bresenham? Maybe I'm missing an important detail here but it is weird to me that in these dose calculation procedures Bresenham is not really an option and always Siddon appears as the gold standard.
Thanks for any comment or reply!
Good day.
It seems to me that in most applications involving medical ray tracing, you want not only the distance from a source to a particular voxel, but also the intersection lengths of that path with every single voxel on its way. Now, Bresenham gives you the voxels on that path, but not the intersection lengths, while Siddon does.
I'm working on a purely continuous physics engine, and I need to choose algorithms for broad and narrow phase collision detection. "Purely continuous" means I never do intersection tests, but instead want to find ways to catch every collision before it happens, and put each into "planned collisions" stack that is ordered by TOI.
Broad Phase
The only continuous broad-phase method I can think of is encasing each body in a circle and testing if each circle will ever overlap another. This seems horribly inefficient however, and lacks any culling.
I have no idea what continuous analogs might exist for today's discrete collision culling methods such as quad-trees either. How might I go about preventing inappropriate and pointless broad test's such as a discrete engine does?
Narrow Phase
I've managed to adapt the narrow SAT to a continuous check rather than discrete, but I'm sure there's other better algorithms out there in papers or sites you guys might have come across.
What various fast or accurate algorithm's do you suggest I use and what are the advantages / disatvantages of each?
Final Note:
I say techniques and not algorithms because I have not yet decided on how I will store different polygons which might be concave, convex, round, or even have holes. I plan to make a decision on this based on what the algorithm requires (for instance if I choose an algorithm that breaks down a polygon into triangles or convex shapes I will simply store the polygon data in this form).
You said circles, so I'm assuming you have 2D objects. You could extend your 2D object (or their bounding shapes) into 3D by adding a time dimension, and then you can use the normal techniques for checking for static collisions among a set of 3D objects.
For example, if you have a circle in (x, y) moving to the right (+x) with constant velocity, then, when you extend that with a time dimension, you have a diagonal cylinder in (x, y, t). By doing intersections between these 3D objects (just treat time as z), you can see if two objects will ever intersect. If point P is a point of intersection, then you know the time of that intersection simply by looking at P.t.
This generalizes into higher dimensions, too, though the math gets hard (for me anyway).
The collision detection might be tricky if objects have complex paths. For example, if your circle is influenced by gravity, then the extruded space-time object is a parabolic sphere sweep rather than a simple cylinder. You could pad the bounding objects a bit and use linear approximations over shorter periods of time and iterate, but I'm not sure if that violates what you mean by continuous.
I am going to assume you want things like gravity or other conservative forces in your simulation. If that's the case the trajectories of your objects are most likely not going to be lines, in which case, just like Adrian pointed out, the math will be somewhat harder. I can't think of a way to avoid checking all possible combinations of curves for collisions, but you can calculate the minimum distance between two curves rather easily, as long as both are solutions to linear systems (or, in general, if you have a closed form solution for the curves). If you know that x1(t) = f(t) and x2(t) = g(t) then what you'll want to
do is calculate the distance ||x1(t) - x2(t)|| and set its derivative to zero. This should be an expression that depends on f(t), g(t) and their derivatives and will give you a time tmin (or maybe a few possible ones) at which you then evaluate the distance and check to see if it is greater or smaller than r1+r2 --- the sum of the radii of the two bounding circles. If it is smaller, then you have a potential collision at that time so you run the narrow phase algorithm.
Imagine we have a 2D sky (10000x10000 coordinates). Anywhere on this sky we can have an aircraft, identified by its position (x, y). Any aircraft can start moving to another coordinates (in straight line).
There is a single component that manages all this positioning and movement. When a aircraft wants to move, it send it a message in the form of (start_pos, speed, end_pos). How can I tell in the component, when one aircraft will move in the line of sight of another (each aircraft has this as a property as radius of sight) in order to notify it. Note that many aircrafts can be moving at the same time. Also, this algorithm is good to be effective sa it can handle ~1000 planes.
If there is some constraint, that is limiting your solution - it can probably be removed. The problem is not fixed.
Use a line to represent the flight path.
Convert each line to a rectangle embracing it. The width of the rectangle is determined by your definition of "close" (The bigger the safety distance is, the wider the rectangle should be).
For each new flight plan:
Check if the new rectangle intersects with another rectangle.
If so, calculate when will each plane reach the collision point. If the time difference is too small (and you should define too small according to the scenario), refuse the new flight plan.
If you want to deal with the temporal aspect (i.e. dealing with the fact that the aircraft move), then I think a potentially simplification is lifting the problem by the time dimension (adding one more dimension - hence, the original problem, being 2D, becomes a 3D problem).
Then, the problem becomes a matter of finding the point where a line intersects a (tilted) cylinder. Finding all possible intersections would then be n^2; not too sure if that is efficient enough.
See Wikipedia:Quadtree for a data structure that will make it easy to find which airplanes are close to a given airplane. It will save you from doing O(N^2) tests for closeness.
You have good answers, I'll comment only on one aspect and probably not correctly
you say that you aircrafts move in form (start_pos, speed, end_pos)
if all aircrafts have such, let's call them, flightplans then you should be able to calculate directly when and where they will be within certain distance from each other, or when will they be at closest point from each other or if the will collide/get too near
So, if they indeed move according to the flightplans and do not deviate from them your problem is deterministic - it boils down to solving a set of equations, which for ~1000 planes is not such a big task.
If you do need to solve these equations faster you can employ the techniques described in other answers
using efficient structures that can speedup calculating distances (quadtree, octree, kd-trees),
splitting the problem to solve the equations only for some relevant future timeslice
prioritize solving equations for pairs for which the distance changes most rapidly
Of course converting time to a third dimension turns the aircrafts from points into lines and you end up searching for the closest points between two 3d lines (here's some math)
I actually found an answer to this question.
It is in the book Real-Time Collision Detection, p. 223. It's better named, as well: Intersecting Moving Sphere Against Sphere, where a 2D sphere is a circle. It's not so simple (and I may also violate some rights) to explain it here, but the basic idea is to fix one of the circles as a point, adding its radius to the radius of the moving one. The new direction for the moving one is the sum of the two original vectors.
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
I've been working on a visualization project for 2-dimensional continuous data. It's the kind of thing you could use to study elevation data or temperature patterns on a 2D map. At its core, it's really a way of flattening 3-dimensions into two-dimensions-plus-color. In my particular field of study, I'm not actually working with geographical elevation data, but it's a good metaphor, so I'll stick with it throughout this post.
Anyhow, at this point, I have a "continuous color" renderer that I'm very pleased with:
The gradient is the standard color-wheel, where red pixels indicate coordinates with high values, and violet pixels indicate low values.
The underlying data structure uses some very clever (if I do say so myself) interpolation algorithms to enable arbitrarily deep zooming into the details of the map.
At this point, I want to draw some topographical contour lines (using quadratic bezier curves), but I haven't been able to find any good literature describing efficient algorithms for finding those curves.
To give you an idea for what I'm thinking about, here's a poor-man's implementation (where the renderer just uses a black RGB value whenever it encounters a pixel that intersects a contour line):
There are several problems with this approach, though:
Areas of the graph with a steeper slope result in thinner (and often broken) topo lines. Ideally, all topo lines should be continuous.
Areas of the graph with a flatter slope result in wider topo lines (and often entire regions of blackness, especially at the outer perimeter of the rendering region).
So I'm looking at a vector-drawing approach for getting those nice, perfect 1-pixel-thick curves. The basic structure of the algorithm will have to include these steps:
At each discrete elevation where I want to draw a topo line, find a set of coordinates where the elevation at that coordinate is extremely close (given an arbitrary epsilon value) to the desired elevation.
Eliminate redundant points. For example, if three points are in a perfectly-straight line, then the center point is redundant, since it can be eliminated without changing the shape of the curve. Likewise, with bezier curves, it is often possible to eliminate cetain anchor points by adjusting the position of adjacent control points.
Assemble the remaining points into a sequence, such that each segment between two points approximates an elevation-neutral trajectory, and such that no two line segments ever cross paths. Each point-sequence must either create a closed polygon, or must intersect the bounding box of the rendering region.
For each vertex, find a pair of control points such that the resultant curve exhibits a minimum error, with respect to the redundant points eliminated in step #2.
Ensure that all features of the topography visible at the current rendering scale are represented by appropriate topo lines. For example, if the data contains a spike with high altitude, but with extremely small diameter, the topo lines should still be drawn. Vertical features should only be ignored if their feature diameter is smaller than the overall rendering granularity of the image.
But even under those constraints, I can still think of several different heuristics for finding the lines:
Find the high-point within the rendering bounding-box. From that high point, travel downhill along several different trajectories. Any time the traversal line crossest an elevation threshold, add that point to an elevation-specific bucket. When the traversal path reaches a local minimum, change course and travel uphill.
Perform a high-resolution traversal along the rectangular bounding-box of the rendering region. At each elevation threshold (and at inflection points, wherever the slope reverses direction), add those points to an elevation-specific bucket. After finishing the boundary traversal, start tracing inward from the boundary points in those buckets.
Scan the entire rendering region, taking an elevation measurement at a sparse regular interval. For each measurement, use it's proximity to an elevation threshold as a mechanism to decide whether or not to take an interpolated measurement of its neighbors. Using this technique would provide better guarantees of coverage across the whole rendering region, but it'd be difficult to assemble the resultant points into a sensible order for constructing paths.
So, those are some of my thoughts...
Before diving deep into an implementation, I wanted to see whether anyone else on StackOverflow has experience with this sort of problem and could provide pointers for an accurate and efficient implementation.
Edit:
I'm especially interested in the "Gradient" suggestion made by ellisbben. And my core data structure (ignoring some of the optimizing interpolation shortcuts) can be represented as the summation of a set of 2D gaussian functions, which is totally differentiable.
I suppose I'll need a data structure to represent a three-dimensional slope, and a function for calculating that slope vector for at arbitrary point. Off the top of my head, I don't know how to do that (though it seems like it ought to be easy), but if you have a link explaining the math, I'd be much obliged!
UPDATE:
Thanks to the excellent contributions by ellisbben and Azim, I can now calculate the contour angle for any arbitrary point in the field. Drawing the real topo lines will follow shortly!
Here are updated renderings, with and without the ghetto raster-based topo-renderer that I've been using. Each image includes a thousand random sample points, represented by red dots. The angle-of-contour at that point is represented by a white line. In certain cases, no slope could be measured at the given point (based on the granularity of interpolation), so the red dot occurs without a corresponding angle-of-contour line.
Enjoy!
(NOTE: These renderings use a different surface topography than the previous renderings -- since I randomly generate the data structures on each iteration, while I'm prototyping -- but the core rendering method is the same, so I'm sure you get the idea.)
Here's a fun fact: over on the right-hand-side of these renderings, you'll see a bunch of weird contour lines at perfect horizontal and vertical angles. These are artifacts of the interpolation process, which uses a grid of interpolators to reduce the number of computations (by about 500%) necessary to perform the core rendering operations. All of those weird contour lines occur on the boundary between two interpolator grid cells.
Luckily, those artifacts don't actually matter. Although the artifacts are detectable during slope calculation, the final renderer won't notice them, since it operates at a different bit depth.
UPDATE AGAIN:
Aaaaaaaand, as one final indulgence before I go to sleep, here's another pair of renderings, one in the old-school "continuous color" style, and one with 20,000 gradient samples. In this set of renderings, I've eliminated the red dot for point-samples, since it unnecessarily clutters the image.
Here, you can really see those interpolation artifacts that I referred to earlier, thanks to the grid-structure of the interpolator collection. I should emphasize that those artifacts will be completely invisible on the final contour rendering (since the difference in magnitude between any two adjacent interpolator cells is less than the bit depth of the rendered image).
Bon appetit!!
The gradient is a mathematical operator that may help you.
If you can turn your interpolation into a differentiable function, the gradient of the height will always point in the direction of steepest ascent. All curves of equal height are perpendicular to the gradient of height evaluated at that point.
Your idea about starting from the highest point is sensible, but might miss features if there is more than one local maximum.
I'd suggest
pick height values at which you will draw lines
create a bunch of points on a fine, regularly spaced grid, then walk each point in small steps in the gradient direction towards the nearest height at which you want to draw a line
create curves by stepping each point perpendicular to the gradient; eliminate excess points by killing a point when another curve comes too close to it-- but to avoid destroying the center of hourglass like figures, you might need to check the angle between the oriented vector perpendicular to the gradient for both of the points. (When I say oriented, I mean make sure that the angle between the gradient and the perpendicular value you calculate is always 90 degrees in the same direction.)
In response to your comment to #erickson and to answer the point about calculating the gradient of your function. Instead of calculating the derivatives of your 300 term function you could do a numeric differentiation as follows.
Given a point [x,y] in your image you could calculate the gradient (direction of steepest decent)
g={ ( f(x+dx,y)-f(x-dx,y) )/(2*dx),
{ ( f(x,y+dy)-f(x,y-dy) )/(2*dy)
where dx and dy could be the spacing in your grid. The contour line will run perpendicular to the gradient. So, to get the contour direction, c, we can multiply g=[v,w] by matrix, A=[0 -1, 1 0] giving
c = [-w,v]
Alternately, there is the marching squares algorithm which seems appropriate to your problem, although you may want to smooth the results if you use a coarse grid.
The topo curves you want to draw are isosurfaces of a scalar field over 2 dimensions. For isosurfaces in 3 dimensions, there is the marching cubes algorithm.
I've wanted something like this myself, but haven't found a vector-based solution.
A raster-based solution isn't that bad, though, especially if your data is raster-based. If your data is vector-based too (in other words, you have a 3D model of your surface), you should be able to do some real math to find the intersection curves with horizontal planes at varying elevations.
For a raster-based approach, I look at each pair of neighboring pixels. If one is above a contour level, and one is below, obviously a contour line runs between them. The trick I used to anti-alias the contour line is to mix the contour line color into both pixels, proportional to their closeness to the idealized contour line.
Maybe some examples will help. Suppose that the current pixel is at an "elevation" of 12 ft, a neighbor is at an elevation of 8 ft, and contour lines are every 10 ft. Then, there is a contour line half way between; paint the current pixel with the contour line color at 50% opacity. Another pixel is at 11 feet and has a neighbor at 6 feet. Color the current pixel at 80% opacity.
alpha = (contour - neighbor) / (current - neighbor)
Unfortunately, I don't have the code handy, and there might have been a bit more to it (I vaguely recall looking at diagonal neighbors too, and adjusting by sqrt(2) / 2). I hope this enough to give you the gist.
It occurred to me that what you're trying to do would be pretty easy to do in MATLAB, using the contour function. Doing things like making low-density approximations to your contours can probably be done with some fairly simple post-processing of the contours.
Fortunately, GNU Octave, a MATLAB clone, has implementations of the various contour plotting functions. You could look at that code for an algorithm and implementation that's almost certainly mathematically sound. Or, you might just be able to offload the processing to Octave. Check out the page on interfacing with other languages to see if that would be easier.
Disclosure: I haven't used Octave very much, and I haven't actually tested it's contour plotting. However, from my experience with MATLAB, I can say that it will give you almost everything you're asking for in just a few lines of code, provided you get your data into MATLAB.
Also, congratulations on making a very VanGough-esque slopefield plot.
I always check places like http://mathworld.wolfram.com before going to deep on my own :)
Maybe their curves section would help? Or maybe the entry on maps.
compare what you have rendered with a real-world topo map - they look identical to me! i wouldn't change a thing...
Write the data out as an HGT file (very simple digital elevation data format used by USGS) and use the free and open-source gdal_contour tool to create contours. That works very well for terrestrial maps, the constraint being that the data points are signed 16-bit numbers, which fits the earthly range of heights in metres very well, but may not be enough for your data, which I assume not to be a map of actual terrain - although you do mention terrain maps.
I recommend the CONREC approach:
Create an empty line segment list
Split your data into regular grid squares
For each grid square, split the square into 4 component triangles:
For each triangle, handle the cases (a through j):
If a line segment crosses one of the cases:
Calculate its endpoints
Store the line segment in the list
Draw each line segment in the line segment list
If the lines are too jagged, use a smaller grid. If the lines are smooth enough and the algorithm is taking too long, use a larger grid.