I'd like to place an arbitrary number of rectangles into a fixed size parent such that they are:
Randomly placed
Randomly rotated to within a give degree range
Nicely dispersed around the center point (not all clumped into one corner)
Not overlapping unless necessary due to lack of space
With minimum overlap when it's necessary
To help you visualize the problem, I would like to scatter images inside a window for the user to choose one.
Googling had led me do various algorithms for packing etc, but nothing really addresses my requirements.
Does anyone have any good ideas?
It shouldn't be much more complicated than:
Place new rectangle in random location with random rotation. Simply using three random values (x, y, r) should do it, unless you want random size as well (in which case you'd need w and h too). This shouldn't give any corner-clumping (through random is random).
For every rectangle already placed, check for collisions. Here's one way. Also check for collisions with the side of the window (if you don't want things to extend past the screen); putting four dummy rectangles around the border may be a cheap way to do this.
If there are any collisions, then there are two choices: either move the new rectangle to a new random location or move both the new rectangle and the blocking rectangle away from each other until they no longer touch. Both have yays and nays - moving the new one only is faster and easier though it might not ever find a place where it fits if the page is really full; moving both is almost sure to be successful but takes longer and may result in chain-reaction collisions that would all have to be sorted out recursively.
In any case you'll want to try and keep the number of rectangles small, because the number of comparisions can quickly get really big. Using a short-circuit (such as "if they're halfway across the screen then don't bother looking closely") may help but isn't guarenteed.
EDIT: Okay, so requirement #5. Chances are that the push-both-rectangles-until-they-no-longer-collide-recursively method of adding new rectangles will end up being the simplest way to do this - just cut off the loop after a few thousand iterations and everything will have attempted to move as far away from everything else as possible, leaving minimum overlap. Or, leave the method running in a seperate thread so that the user can see them spreading out as more are added (also stopping it from looking like it's locking up while it's thinking), stopping once no rectangle has moved more than X units in one iteration.
How about this? Consider the rectangles you have to place as shaped, charged particles which repel one another and are also repelled by the walls of the container. You could start by (randomly) distributing them (and giving them random angles) in the container, then running a simulation where each "particle" moves in response to the forces acting on it (angles will change according to the turning moments of these forces). Stop when you hit a configuration within your tolerances.
You could simplify the calculations by treating each rectangle as an ellipse, which can be further simplified by treating each ellipse as a circle which has undergone scaling and rotation.
I don't understand requirement 2. Are you saying that the rectangles themselves are rotated around the rectangle center point, or that the rectangles only cover part of the 360 degree circle around the center point of all the rectangles.
I'm not sure that random is the way to go.
Simply divide the number of rectangles desired by 360 degrees. That's the number of degrees to offset each rectangle as it's being drawn. This should cover requirements 3, 4, and 5.
Related
I have a collection of different sized rectangles that need to be placed on a 2D surface of a known dimension, with the condition that:
there is no overlap between the blocks,
the rectangles may not be rotated,
there is no area left blank (whole surface needs to be filled).
The rectangles are actually generated by breaking down the surface area, so they ought to fill up the area completely once you start putting everything together.
I figured there would be a dozen algorithms available for this problem, but the algorithms I find are more like best effort algorithms such as sprite generators that do not have the precondition that the whole area needs to be (can be...) filled -- which obviously is not necessary when building sprites, however, it is in my case.
I am a bit lost here, either this problem isn't as simple as I thought, or I am searching on wrong keywords.
Some topics I have found but do not fully suit my needs:
What algorithm can be used for packing rectangles of different sizes into the smallest rectangle possible in a fairly optimal way? (in my case, the area is preset)
How to arrange N rectangles to cover minimum area (in my case, minimum area must equal zero)
Is there any algorithm out there that may suit my needs?
IMHO, the most natural solution is recursive. For the form of source area is not set. And after removing a rectangle from it, we have the same task, only with smaller area and -1 rectangle.
I would start from the edges, because there the possible variants are already limited. So, simply go by spiral, trying to put rectangles along the edge. If no rectangle fits, go back. That will be the simplest and not so slow raw force method.
I am looking for a sound algorithm that would randomly place a given number of rectangles of the same size into a bigger rectangle (canvas).
I see two ways to do it:
create an empty array that will contain the rectangles already placed on canvas. start with the empty canvas. in a loop, pick a position at random for a new rectangle to be placed. check if the array has a rectangle that overlaps with the new rectangle. if it does not, put the new rectangle in to the array and repeat the loop. otherwise, pick a new position, and rerun the check again. and so on. This might never terminate (theoretically) I think. I do not like it.
use a grid and place rectangles into the cells randomly. This might still look like a grid placement. I do not like it either.
any better ways to do it? "better" meaning more efficient, or more visually "random" than the grid approach. better in any respect.
Here is a simple heuristic. It will be non-overlapping and random.
Place a rectangle randomly. Then, calculate the intersections of extensions of the the two parallel edges of the first rectangle with the edges of the canvas. You will obtain four convex empty regions. Place other rectangles in these empty regions one-by-one independently and calculate the similar divisions for placements. And try to put the remaining rectangles in empty regions.
You can try different strategies. You can try to place the rectangles close to the corners. Or, you can place them around the center of the regions. We cannot discuss optimality because you introduced randomness.
You might find Quadtrees or R-trees useful for your purpose.
I create internal room-like dungeons using the following method.
1) Scatter N points at random, but not within a few pixels of each other.
2) For each point in turn, expand if possible in all four directions. Cease
expanding if you hit another rectangle.
3) Cease the algorithm when no rooms can expand.
The result is N rectancles with just a few rectangular small spaces.
Code is in the binary image library
https://github.com/MalcolmMcLean/binaryimagelibrary/blob/master/dungeongenerator3.c
#
Here is a graphic representation of the problem:
http://i.imgur.com/aBG3p.jpg
Given a starting point (x1,y1) and a destination point (x2,y2), I must determine if the path between the two points is open or, if it is not open, which coordinate the collision happens on.
It would be a trivial problem except for the special rules involved:
The line can intercept a point, call it (i,j) to a small and varying degree without causing a collision. If (i,j) is directly adjacent to (x1,y1), we can safely cut about 0.4 over its corners without triggering a collision. However we cannot cut 0.4 over if going directly through it, only over the corners. This number tapers off to about 0.2 as we get further away from (x,y). Unfortunately I'm just trying to reconstruct something I saw once, so I don't know the exact values, I'm just approximating them.
The caveat to 1: If the space directly beside (i,j), in the plane that we are intersecting, on the side that we are intersecting, is also occupied, there will be a collision no matter what. The collision will happen (i,j) if we intercept it by too much, otherwise in the relevant adjacent tile.
I've made several tries to crack this problem, always ending up with false negatives and/or the collision resulting on the wrong tile. I tried to do it without considering the angle, just by looking at the decimal points of x and y as we travel down the line. I'm not sure if it is possible to do this, or if I must use the angle in some way, or if using the angle in some way could make my life easier.
Please help if you can!
It seems like you could get results similar to what you describe by treating the occupied grids as containing unit circles. That would let you pass corners, but block on any 2 adjacent ones, since they contact.
So I'd try using your current collision method to check rectangles quickly, then refining it once you found a collision, by testing the line entering the box against a circle centered in it.
What is the most efficient way to randomly fill a space with as many non-overlapping shapes? In my specific case, I'm filling a circle with circles. I'm randomly placing circles until either a certain percentage of the outer circle is filled OR a certain number of placements have failed (i.e. were placed in a position that overlapped an existing circle). This is pretty slow, and often leaves empty spaces unless I allow a huge number of failures.
So, is there some other type of filling algorithm I can use to quickly fill as much space as possible, but still look random?
Issue you are running into
You are running into the Coupon collector's problem because you are using a technique of Rejection sampling.
You are also making strong assumptions about what a "random filling" is. Your algorithm will leave large gaps between circles; is this what you mean by "random"? Nevertheless it is a perfectly valid definition, and I approve of it.
Solution
To adapt your current "random filling" to avoid the rejection sampling coupon-collector's issue, merely divide the space you are filling into a grid. For example if your circles are of radius 1, divide the larger circle into a grid of 1/sqrt(2)-width blocks. When it becomes "impossible" to fill a gridbox, ignore that gridbox when you pick new points. Problem solved!
Possible dangers
You have to be careful how you code this however! Possible dangers:
If you do something like if (random point in invalid grid){ generateAnotherPoint() } then you ignore the benefit / core idea of this optimization.
If you do something like pickARandomValidGridbox() then you will slightly reduce the probability of making circles near the edge of the larger circle (though this may be fine if you're doing this for a graphics art project and not for a scientific or mathematical project); however if you make the grid size 1/sqrt(2) times the radius of the circle, you will not run into this problem because it will be impossible to draw blocks at the edge of the large circle, and thus you can ignore all gridboxes at the edge.
Implementation
Thus the generalization of your method to avoid the coupon-collector's problem is as follows:
Inputs: large circle coordinates/radius(R), small circle radius(r)
Output: set of coordinates of all the small circles
Algorithm:
divide your LargeCircle into a grid of r/sqrt(2)
ValidBoxes = {set of all gridboxes that lie entirely within LargeCircle}
SmallCircles = {empty set}
until ValidBoxes is empty:
pick a random gridbox Box from ValidBoxes
pick a random point inside Box to be center of small circle C
check neighboring gridboxes for other circles which may overlap*
if there is no overlap:
add C to SmallCircles
remove the box from ValidBoxes # possible because grid is small
else if there is an overlap:
increase the Box.failcount
if Box.failcount > MAX_PERGRIDBOX_FAIL_COUNT:
remove the box from ValidBoxes
return SmallCircles
(*) This step is also an important optimization, which I can only assume you do not already have. Without it, your doesThisCircleOverlapAnother(...) function is incredibly inefficient at O(N) per query, which will make filling in circles nearly impossible for large ratios R>>r.
This is the exact generalization of your algorithm to avoid the slowness, while still retaining the elegant randomness of it.
Generalization to larger irregular features
edit: Since you've commented that this is for a game and you are interested in irregular shapes, you can generalize this as follows. For any small irregular shape, enclose it in a circle that represent how far you want it to be from things. Your grid can be the size of the smallest terrain feature. Larger features can encompass 1x2 or 2x2 or 3x2 or 3x3 etc. contiguous blocks. Note that many games with features that span large distances (mountains) and small distances (torches) often require grids which are recursively split (i.e. some blocks are split into further 2x2 or 2x2x2 subblocks), generating a tree structure. This structure with extensive bookkeeping will allow you to randomly place the contiguous blocks, however it requires a lot of coding. What you can do however is use the circle-grid algorithm to place the larger features first (when there's lot of space to work with on the map and you can just check adjacent gridboxes for a collection without running into the coupon-collector's problem), then place the smaller features. If you can place your features in this order, this requires almost no extra coding besides checking neighboring gridboxes for collisions when you place a 1x2/3x3/etc. group.
One way to do this that produces interesting looking results is
create an empty NxM grid
create an empty has-open-neighbors set
for i = 1 to NumberOfRegions
pick a random point in the grid
assign that grid point a (terrain) type
add the point to the has-open-neighbors set
while has-open-neighbors is not empty
foreach point in has-open-neighbors
get neighbor-points as the immediate neighbors of point
that don't have an assigned terrain type in the grid
if none
remove point from has-open-neighbors
else
pick a random neighbor-point from neighbor-points
assign its grid location the same (terrain) type as point
add neighbor-point to the has-open-neighbors set
When done, has-open-neighbors will be empty and the grid will have been populated with at most NumberOfRegions regions (some regions with the same terrain type may be adjacent and so will combine to form a single region).
Sample output using this algorithm with 30 points, 14 terrain types, and a 200x200 pixel world:
Edit: tried to clarify the algorithm.
How about using a 2-step process:
Choose a bunch of n points randomly -- these will become the centres of the circles.
Determine the radii of these circles so that they do not overlap.
For step 2, for each circle centre you need to know the distance to its nearest neighbour. (This can be computed for all points in O(n^2) time using brute force, although it may be that faster algorithms exist for points in the plane.) Then simply divide that distance by 2 to get a safe radius. (You can also shrink it further, either by a fixed amount or by an amount proportional to the radius, to ensure that no circles will be touching.)
To see that this works, consider any point p and its nearest neighbour q, which is some distance d from p. If p is also q's nearest neighbour, then both points will get circles with radius d/2, which will therefore be touching; OTOH, if q has a different nearest neighbour, it must be at distance d' < d, so the circle centred at q will be even smaller. So either way, the 2 circles will not overlap.
My idea would be to start out with a compact grid layout. Then take each circle and perturb it in some random direction. The distance in which you perturb it can also be chosen at random (just make sure that the distance doesn't make it overlap another circle).
This is just an idea and I'm sure there are a number of ways you could modify it and improve upon it.
I am looking for an algorithm as follows:
Given a set of possibly overlapping rectangles (All of which are "not rotated", can be uniformly represented as (left,top,right,bottom) tuplets, etc...), it returns a minimal set of (non-rotated) non-overlapping rectangles, that occupy the same area.
It seems simple enough at first glance, but prooves to be tricky (at least to be done efficiently).
Are there some known methods for this/ideas/pointers?
Methods for not necessarily minimal, but heuristicly small, sets, are interesting as well, so are methods that produce any valid output set at all.
Something based on a line-sweep algorithm would work, I think:
Sort all of your rectangles' min and max x coordinates into an array, as "start-rectangle" and "end-rectangle" events
Step through the array, adding each new rectangle encountered (start-event) into a current set
Simultaneously, maintain a set of "non-overlapping rectangles" that will be your output set
Any time you encounter a new rectangle you can check whether it's completely contained already in the current / output set (simple comparisons of y-coordinates will suffice)
If it isn't, add a new rectangle to your output set, with y-coordinates set to the part of the new rectangle that isn't already covered.
Any time you hit a rectangle end-event, stop any rectangles in your output set that aren't covering anything anymore.
I'm not completely sure this covers everything, but I think with some tweaking it should get the job done. Or at least give you some ideas... :)
So, if I were trying to do this, the first thing I'd do is come up with a unified grid space. Find all unique x and y coordinates, and create a mapping to an index space. So if you have x values { -1, 1.5, 3.1 } then map those to { 0, 1, 2 }, and likewise for y. Then every rectangle can be exactly represented with these packed integer coordinates.
Then I'd allocate a bitvector or something that covers the entire grid, and rasterize your rectangles in the grid. The nice thing about having a grid is that it's really easy to work with, and by limiting it to unique x and y coordinates it's minimal and exact.
One way to come up with a pretty quick solution is just dump every 'pixel' of your grid.. run them back through your mapping, and you're done. If you're looking for a more optimal number of rectangles, then you've got some sort of search problem on your hands.
Let's look at 4 neighboring pixels, a little 2x2 square. When I write algorithms like these, typically I think in terms of verts, edges, and faces. So, these are the faces around a vert. If 3 of them are on and 1 is off, then you've got a concave corner. This is the only invalid case. For example, if I don't have any concave corners, I just grab the extents and dump the whole thing as a single rectangle. For each concave corner, you need to decide whether to split horizontally, vertically, or both. I think of the splitting as marking edges not to cross when finding extents. You could also do it as coloring into sets, whatever is easier for you.
The concave corners and their split directions are your search space.. you can use whatever optimization algorithm you'd like. Branch/bound might work well. I bet you could find a simple heuristic that performs well (for example, if there's another concave corner directly across from the one you're considering, always split in that direction. Otherwise, split in the shorter direction). You could just go greedy. Or you could just split every concave vert in both directions, which would generally give you fewer rectangles than outputting every 'pixel' as a rect, and would be pretty simple.
Reading over this I realize that there may be areas that are unclear. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything.