I am writing code for Robot moving on a floor in the room ( considered center of the floor is origin (0,0)). Robot can move in any direction(south, east, west, north), touching different vertices in the floor. I would like to know how many unique vertices it touched.
For this, I am using a dynamic 2D array which records each stores vertex touches. So, the logic like this...if robot touches a vertex, that vertex will be checked in the array. If it is there, I do not increment my counter. At the end, I will get all unique vertices robot touched.
Is there any other better approach to find unique vertices robot touches.
Thanks.
I am writing code in C#. Size of the floor x-axis(-1,00,000 to 1,00,000), y-axis(-1,00,000 to 1,00,000)
It depends on the size of the floor. If it is small, then your approach is probably the best. Alternatively, if the floor size is so large that it is impractical to keep a complete map of it in memory, then rather use an associative array (or whatever the equivalent is in C#) with vertex coords as keys, and a simple boolean as the value, which will only record the vertices actually visited.
Related
As the title suggest my problem lies in some representation of a sphere surface in computer memory. For simplicity, let's say we are making a chess game where the board is on a sphere. If the board was a classic flat board, then the solution is simple: use a 2D table.
But I don't know what kind of a memory structure I should chose for a sphere. Namely, what I want from this representation are:
If I move a pawn stubbornly in one direction, then I should return to the point where I started,
During such "journey" I should cross a point directly on the other side of the sphere (I mean to avoid a common "error" in a 2D game where moving pass an edge of a board will move an object to the opposite edge, thus making the board a torus, not a real sphere)
the area of one board cell should be approximately equal to any other cell
a cell should have got an associated longitude-latitude coordinates (I wrote "associated" because I want from the representation to only have got some way to obtain these coordinates from the position of a cell, not to be eg. a table with lat-long indexes)
There's no simple geometric solution to this. The crux of the problem is that, say you have n columns at the equator, and you're currently near the north poll, and heading north. Then the combination of the direction and the column number from the top row (and second from top row) must be able to uniquely identify which one of the n positions at the equator that path is going to cross. Therefore, direction could not be an integer unless you have n columns in the top (or second to top) row. Notice that if the polygons have more than three sides, then they must have common edges (and triangles won't work for other reasons). So now you have a grid, but if you have more than three rows (i.e. a cube, or other regular prism), then moving sideways on the second-to-top row will not navigate you to the southern hemisphere.
The best bet might be to create a regular polyhedron, and keep the point and direction as floating point vectors/points, and calculate the actual position when you move, and figure out which polygon you land in (note, you would have the possibility of moving to non-adjacent polygons with this method, and you might have issues if you land exactly on an edge/vertex, etc).
In physics simulations (for example n-body systems) it is sometimes necessary to keep track of which particles (points in 3D space) are close enough to interact (within some cutoff distance d) in some kind of index. However, particles can move around, so it is necessary to update the index, ideally on the fly without recomputing it entirely. Also, for efficiency in calculating interactions it is necessary to keep the list of interacting particles in the form of tiles: a tile is a fixed size array (eg 32x32) where the rows and columns are particles, and almost every row-particle is close enough to interact with almost every column particle (and the array keeps track of which ones actually do interact).
What algorithms may be used to do this?
Here is a more detailed description of the problem:
Initial construction: Given a list of points in 3D space (on the order of a few thousand to a few million, stored as array of floats), produce a list of tiles of a fixed size (NxN), where each tile has two lists of points (N row points and N column points), and a boolean array NxN which describes whether the interaction between each row and column particle should be calculated, and for which:
a. every pair of points p1,p2 for which distance(p1,p2) < d is found in at least one tile and marked as being calculated (no missing interactions), and
b. if any pair of points is in more than one tile, it is only marked as being calculated in the boolean array in at most one tile (no duplicates),
and also the number of tiles is relatively small if possible (but this is less important than being able to update the tiles efficiently)
Update step: If the positions of the points change slightly (by much less than d), update the list of tiles in the fastest way possible so that they still meet the same conditions a and b (this step is repeated many times)
It is okay to keep any necessary data structures that help with this, for example the bounding boxes of each tile, or a spatial index like a quadtree. It is probably too slow to calculate all particle pairwise distances for every update step (and in any case we only care about particles which are close, so we can skip most possible pairs of distances just by sorting along a single dimension for example). Also it is probably too slow to keep a full (quadtree or similar) index of all particle positions. On the other hand is perfectly fine to construct the tiles on a regular grid of some kind. The density of particles per unit volume in 3D space is roughly constant, so the tiles can probably be built from (essentially) fixed size bounding boxes.
To give an example of the typical scale/properties of this kind of problem, suppose there is 1 million particles, which are arranged as a random packing of spheres of diameter 1 unit into a cube with of size roughly 100x100x100. Suppose the cutoff distance is 5 units, so typically each particle would be interacting with (2*5)**3 or ~1000 other particles or so. The tile size is 32x32. There are roughly 1e+9 interacting pairs of particles, so the minimum possible number of tiles is ~1e+6. Now assume each time the positions change, the particles move a distance around 0.0001 unit in a random direction, but always in a way such that they are at least 1 unit away from any other particle and the typical density of particles per unit volume stays the same. There would typically be many millions of position update steps like that. The number of newly created pairs of interactions per step due to the movement is (back of the envelope) (10**2 * 6 * 0.0001 / 10**3) * 1e+9 = 60000, so one update step can be handled in principle by marking 60000 particles as non-interacting in their original tiles, and adding at most 60000 new tiles (mostly empty - one per pair of newly interacting particles). This would rapidly get to a point where most tiles are empty, so it is definitely necessary to combine/merge tiles somehow pretty often - but how to do it without a full rebuild of the tile list?
P.S. It is probably useful to describe how this differs from the typical spatial index (eg octrees) scenario: a. we only care about grouping close by points together into tiles, not looking up which points are in an arbitrary bounding box or which points are closest to a query point - a bit closer to clustering that querying and b. the density of points in space is pretty constant and c. the index has to be updated very often, but most moves are tiny
Not sure my reasoning is sound, but here's an idea:
Divide your space into a grid of 3d cubes, like this in three dimensions:
The cubes have a side length of d. Then do the following:
Assign all points to all cubes in which they're contained; this is fast since you can derive a point's cube from just their coordinates
Now check the following:
Mark all points in the top left of your cube as colliding; they're less than d apart. Further, every "quarter cube" in space is only the top left quarter of exactly one cube, so you won't check the same pair twice.
Check fo collisions of type (p, q), where p is a point in the top left quartile, and q is a point not in the top left quartile. In this way, you will check collision between every two points again at most once, because very pair of quantiles is checked exactly once.
Since every pair of points is either in the same quartile or in neihgbouring quartiles, they'll be checked by the first or the second algorithm. Further, since points are approximately distributed evenly, your runtime is much less than n^2 (n=no points); in aggregate, it's k^2 (k = no points per quartile, which appears to be approximately constant).
In an update step, you only need to check:
if a point crossed a boundary of a box, which should be fast since you can look at one coordinate at a time, and box' boundaries are a simple multiple of d/2
check for collisions of the points as above
To create the tiles, divide the space into a second grid of (non-overlapping) cubes whose width is chosen s.t. the average count of centers between two particles that almost interact with each other that fall into a given cube is less than the width of your tiles (i.e. 32). Since each particle is expected to interact with 300-500 particles, the width will be much smaller than d.
Then, while checking for interactions in step 1 & 2, assigne particle interactions to these new cubes according to the coordinates of the center of their interaction. Assign one tile per cube, and mark interacting particles assigned to that cube in the tile. Visualization:
Further optimizations might be to consider the distance of a point's closest neighbour within a cube, and derive from that how many update steps are needed at least to change the collision status of that point; then ignore that point for this many steps.
I suggest the following algorithm. E.g we have cube 1x1x1 and the cutoff distance is 0.001
Let's choose three base anchor points: (0,0,0) (0,1,0) (1,0,0)
Associate array of size 1000 ( 1 / 0.001) with each anchor point
Add three numbers into each regular point. We will store the distance between the given point and each anchor point inside these fields
At the same time this distance will be used as an index in an array inside the anchor point. E.g. 0.4324 means index 432.
Let's store the set of points inside of each three arrays
Calculate distance between the regular point and each anchor point every time when update point
Move point between sets in arrays during the update
The given structures will give you an easy way to find all closer points: it is the intersection between three sets. And we choose these sets based on the distance between point and anchor points.
In short, it is the intersection between three spheres. Maybe you need to apply additional filtering for the result if you want to erase the corners of this intersection.
Consider using the Barnes-Hut algorithm or something similar. A simulation in 2D would use a quadtree data structure to store particles, and a 3D simulation would use an octree.
The benefit of using a a tree structure is that it stores the particles in a way that nearby particles can be found quickly by traversing the tree, and far-away particles are in traversal paths that can be ignored.
Wikipedia has a good description of the algorithm:
The Barnes–Hut tree
In a three-dimensional n-body simulation, the Barnes–Hut algorithm recursively divides the n bodies into groups by storing them in an octree (or a quad-tree in a 2D simulation). Each node in this tree represents a region of the three-dimensional space. The topmost node represents the whole space, and its eight children represent the eight octants of the space. The space is recursively subdivided into octants until each subdivision contains 0 or 1 bodies (some regions do not have bodies in all of their octants). There are two types of nodes in the octree: internal and external nodes. An external node has no children and is either empty or represents a single body. Each internal node represents the group of bodies beneath it, and stores the center of mass and the total mass of all its children bodies.
demo
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 !
I have written a win32 api-based GUI app which uses GDI+ features such as DrawCurve() and DrawLine().
This app draws lines and curves that represent a multigraph.
The data structure for the edge is simply a struct of five int's. (x1, y1, x2, y2, and id)
If there is only one edge between two vertices, a straight line segment is drawn using DrawLine().
If there are more than one edges, curves are drawn using DrawCurve() -- Here, I spread straight-line edges about the midpoint of two vertices, making them curves. A point some unit pixels apart from it is calculated using the normal line equation. If more edges are added then a pixel two unit pixels apart from the midpoint is selected, then next time 3 unit pixels, and so on.
Now I have two questions on detecting the click on edges.
In finding straight-line edges, to minimize the search time, what should I do?
It's quite simple to check if the pixel clicked is on the line segment but comparing all edges would be inefficient if the number of edges large. It seems possible to do it in O(log n), where n is the number of edges.
EDIT: at this point the edges (class Edge) are stored in std::map that maps edge id (int)'s
to Edge objects and I'm considering declaring another container that maps pixels to edge id's.
I'm considering using binary search trees but what can be the key? Or should I use just a 2D pixel array?
Can I get the array of points used by DrawCurve()? If this is impossible, then I should re-calculate the cardinal spline, get the array of points, and check if the point clicked by the user matches any point in that array.
If you have complex shaped lines you can do as follows:
Create an internal bitmap the size of your graph and fill it with black.
When you render your graph also render to this bitmap the edges you want to have click-able, but, render them with a different color. Store these color values in a table together with the corresponding ID. The important thing here is that the colors are different (unique).
When the graph is clicked, transfer the X and Y co-ordinates to your internal bitmap and read the pixel. If non-black, look up the color value in your table and get the associated ID.
This way do don't need to worry about the shape at all, neither is there a need to use your own curve algorithm and so forth. The cost is extra memory, this will a consideration, but unless it is a huge graph (in which case you can buffer the drawing) it is in most cases not an issue. You can render the internal bitmap in a second pass to have main graphics appear faster (as usual).
Hope this helps!
(tip: you can render the "internal" lines with a wider Pen so it gets more sensitive).
I have a 3D polygon mesh and a corresponding 2D polygon mesh (actually from a UV map) which I'm using to map the geometry onto a 2D plane. Given a point on the plane, how can I efficiently find the polygon on which it's resting in order to map that 2D point back into 3D?
The best approach I can think of is to store the polygons in a 2D interval tree, and use that to get candidate polygons. Is there a simpler approach?
To clarify, this is not for a shader. I'm actually taking a 2D physical simulation and rendering it wrapped around a 3D mesh. For drawing each object, I need to figure out what point in 3D corresponds to its real 2D position.*
One approach I've seen for triangle meshes goes as follows: choose a triangle, and imagine that each of the sides defines a half space. For a given edge, the half space boundary is the line containing the edge, and the half space does not contain the triangle. Choose an edge whose corresponding half space contains your target point. Then select the triangle on the other side of edge, and repeat the process.
Using this method, you will eventually end up at the triangle that contains your target point.
This method is arguable simpler than implementing a 2D interval tree, although the search is less efficient (if n is the number of triangles, it is O(√n) rather than O(log n). Also, it should work for a polygon mesh, as long as the polygons are convex.
So, if I were trying to just get the thing implemented, I'd probably start with a global search of all triangles - compute the barycentric coordinates of that 2d point for each triangle, find the triangle where the barycentric coordinates are all positive, and then use those to map to 3d (multiply the stu position by the 3d points). I'd do this first, and only if it's not fast enough would I try something more complex.
If it's possible to iterate by triangle rather than by 2d points, then the barycentric method would probably be fast enough. But it seems like you've got a bunch of 2d points at arbitrary positions that need to be mapped, and the points change position from frame to frame?
If you've got this kind of situation, you could probably get a big speedup by implementing a local update per frame. Each 2d point would remember which triangle it was within. Set that as the current triangle. Test if the new position is within the current triangle. If not, then you want to walk the mesh to the adjacent triangle which is closest to the target 2d point. Each edge-adjacent triangle is composed of the two common points on the edge, plus another point. Find which edge-adjacent triangle's other point is closest to the target, and set that as current. Then iterate - seems like it should find it pretty quickly? You could also cache a max size for each triangle, so if the point has moved a lot you can just iterate to the next neighbor without doing the barycentric computation (the max size would need to be the distance such that if you are farther than that distance from any triangle point there is no chance you're inside the triangle. This is the length of the largest edge).
But as you mention in your comments, you can run into problems with meshes that have concavities, holes, or separate connected components, where you may fall into a local minimum. There are a couple of ways to deal with this. I think the simplest is to keep a list of all visited triangles (maybe as a flag on the triangle, vector< bool > or set< triangle index >) and refuse to revisit a triangle. If you find that you've visited all the neighbors of your current triangle, then fall back to a global search. Such failures are likely to be uncommon, so it shouldn't hurt your performance too much.
This kind of per-frame updating can be very fast, and might even be a decent approach for computing the initial containing triangles - just choose a random triangle and walk from there (changes from checking all n triangles to only those that are in roughly a straight line to the target). If it's not fast enough, what you could do is keep a k-d tree (or something similar) of the 2d mesh points as well as a single touching triangle index for each mesh point. To seed the iteration, find the closest point to the target 2d point in the k-d tree, set the adjacent triangle to be current, and then iterate.