I need to solve the following problem:
I have multiple rectangles of sizes: width height, width/2 height/2, width/4 height/4 , width/8 height/8 ... etc
I need to pack these rectangles in a big rectangle of size x*width y*height such that no rectangles overlap, the rectangles are distributed randomly in the packing and any rectangle should at least touch another rectangle. I tried a fairly basic greedy algorithm but it fails.
Can you give me some suggestions on how to solve the problem?
Thanks!
EDIT: You can have more than one rectangle of each size
This is not homework. I'm trying to create an effect similar to the effect on ted.com
By random I mean that there might exist more than one packing of the rectangles that satisfies the constraints. The algorithm should not produce the same packing at each run.
This sounds like a rectangle packing problem. There is a link there to an algorithm. That code packs the rectangles as tightly as possible. You said you want the rectangles to be distributed randomly, which I'm guessing means not all rectangles of one size next to each other and all rectangles spread out to fill the big rectangle. Maybe the code at the link above would be a good starting point to get some ideas.
You can use a spatial index or a quadtree to subdivide the 2d-plane. The idea is to reduce the 2d problem to a 1d-problem. Once you got the spatial index (or space-filling-curve) and you can discretize the 2d into 1d you can use the 1d to search for similarity or to sort from low to high or the reverse for example by the length. If you got this order you can then compute the index back to a 2d represenation and to pack them in most efficent way in your container. There are many ways to make a spatial index. Some of the best but difficult to make is the hilbert curve. Another one is the z-curve or morton-curve. It's different from zizag-curve because it's subdivide the plane into 4 squares (not rectangles).
EDIT: Here is a link for an Jquery-Plugin: http://www.fbtools.com/jquery/treemap/
Here with world poplulation: http://www.fbtools.com/jquery/treemap/population.html
EDIT: http://people.csail.mit.edu/konak/papers/socg_2008-circular_partitions_with_applications_to_visualization_and_embeddings.html
EDIT: http://lip.sourceforge.net/ctreemap.html
At each step you divide the surface of your new rectange by 4.
SUM(1/4n for n in [0,inf]) = 4/3**
So the best you can do is fit your rectangle in a rectangle of surface
4/3 (height*width)
(that's a lower bound)
#mloskot algorithm gives a possible solution that will be in a rectangle of surface 3/2*(height*width) : Here is an illustration:
I don't see how you can do better.
Assuming you have only one rectangle of each size, you can try to replicate the arrangement of paper sizes. Sort the rectangles by size from the biggest to the smallest, then
Take first rectangle and place it at the corner of the target plane.
Take next rectangle (assert it's smaller than the previous rectangle)
Rotate about 90 degrees
Place so
its shorter size is adjacent to the longer size of the last bigger neighbour
and its longer side is adjacent to the edge of the target plane or edge of neighbour of the same
size
Repeat 2 - 4
I realise the description might be unclear, so here is picture presenting the solution - it should help to grasp it:
This is a lot like MIP-mapping
Related
Given an array of 3D integers, what is the algorithmic complexity of determining which of those integers exist within a cube? I'm assuming the points can be represented in a number of concurrent data structures, each sorted in one or more dimensions.
My intuition tells me given a sorted array of points in 1D one can determine the subset of points between some lower and upper bound in something like O(log(n), but I would be very grateful for any insights others can offer on this notion (and any help others can offer generalizing to the multidimensional case!).
If you're unfamiliar with the math involved, I recommend doing this problem in two dimensions first, with a rectangle. That way, you can get familiar with the math, which is really just a bit of basic trigonometry. After that, stepping up to three dimensions isn't very difficult.
The problem is much simpler if the cube (or rectangle) is axis aligned, so you probably should do that first. For an example of determining the rotation you need, see How to calculate rotation angle from rectangle points?.
Once you've determined the rotation angle, you can translate the rectangle to the origin and rotate it by doing the first two steps in the accepted answer here: Drawing a Rotated Rectangle.
You now have an axis-aligned rectangle that's centered at the origin.
Finally, for each of your points:
Apply the same translation and rotation that you applied to the rectangle.
Test to see if the x and y coordinates in the resulting point are within the rectangle. This is a matter of, at most, four bounds checks.
If the point is in the rectangle, save it.
Once you've done this in two dimensions, you should be able to apply those concepts to three dimensions.
The algorithm is O(n), where n is the number of points.
I'm just going to try and explain my problem with images:
The program receives an input (image):
There is a base polygon, but can be simplified into a circle in all situations:
Output should be something like:
There is no correct result, just good and bad ones.
To make things easier, an estimate how many circles there should be can be given based on the surface and extent of the polygon.
What I am searching is an algorithm that does something described above - cover as much as possible with the given shape, while minimizing the area of black pixels and overlapping areas.
I used k-means clustering to find circle centers. Number of clusters is calculated:
numberOfClusters = round(polygonArea / basePolygonArea).
Input data for k-means algorithm are points of white pixels.
I'm not sure if there's an algorithm that can solve this.
A given number of rectangles are placed side by side horizontally from left to right to form a shape. You are given the width and height of each.
How would you determine the minimum number of rectangles needed to cover the whole shape?
i.e How would you redraw this shape using as few rectangles as possible?
I've can only think about trying to squeeze as many big rectangles as i can but that seems inefficient.
Any ideas?
Edit:
You are given a number n , and then n sizes:
2
1 3
2 5
The above would have two rectangles of sizes 1x3 and 2x5 next to each other.
I'm wondering how many rectangles would i least need to recreate that shape given rectangles cannot overlap.
Since your rectangles are well aligned, it makes the problem easier. You can simply create rectangles from the bottom up. Each time you do that, it creates new shapes to check. The good thing is, all your new shapes will also be base-aligned, and you can just repeat as necessary.
First, you want to find the minimum height rectangle. Make a rectangle that height, with the width as total width for the shape. Cut that much off the bottom of the shape.
You'll be left with multiple shapes. For each one, do the same thing.
Finding the minimum height rectangle should be O(n). Since you do that for each group, worst case is all different heights. Totals out to O(n2).
For example:
In the image, the minimum for each shape is highlighted green. The resulting rectangle is blue, to the right. The total number of rectangles needed is the total number of blue ones in the image, 7.
Note that I'm explaining this as if these were physical rectangles. In code, you can completely do away with the width, since it doesn't matter in the least unless you want to output the rectangles rather than just counting how many it takes.
You can also reduce the "make a rectangle and cut it from the shape" to simply subtracting the height from each rectangle that makes up that shape/subshape. Each contiguous section of shapes with +ve height after doing so will make up a new subshape.
If you look for an overview on algorithms for the general problem, Rectangular Decomposition of Binary Images (article by Tomas Suk, Cyril Höschl, and Jan Flusser) might be helpful. It compares different approaches: row methods, quadtree, largest inscribed block, transformation- and graph-based methods.
A juicy figure (from page 11) as an appetizer:
Figure 5: (a) The binary convolution kernel used in the experiment. (b) Its 10 blocks of GBD decomposition.
I have a kind of cutting problem. There is an irregular polygon that doesn't have any holes and a list of standard sized of rectangular tiles and their values.
I want an efficient algorithm to find the single best valued tile that fit in this polygon; or an algorithm that just says if a single tile can fit inside the polygon. And it should run in deterministic time for irregular polygons with less than 100 vertices.
Please consider that you can rotate the polygon and tiles.
Answers/hints for both convex and non-convex polygons are appreciated.
Disclaimer: I've never read any literature on this, so there might be a better way of doing this. This solution is just what I've thought about after having read your question.
A rectangle has two important measurements - it's height and it's width
now if we start with a polygon and a rectangle:
1: go around the perimeter of the polygon and take note of all the places the height of the rectangle will fit in the polygon (you can store this as a polygon*):
2: go around the perimeter of the new polygon you just made and take note of all the places the width of the rectangle will fit in the polygon (again, you can store this as a polygon):
3: the rectangle should fit within this new polygon (just be careful that you position the rectangle inside the polygon correctly, as this is a polygon - not a rectangle. If you align the top left node of the rectangle with the top left node of this new polygon, you should be ok)
4: if no area can be found that the rectangle will fit in, rotate the polygon by a couple of degrees, and try again.
*Note: in some polygons, you will get more than one place a rectangle can be fitted:
After many hopeless searches, I think there isn't any specific algorithm for this problem. Until, I found this old paper about polygon containment problem.That mentioned article, present a really good algorithm to consider if a polygon with n points can fit a polygon with m points or not. The algorithm is of O(n^3 m^3(n+m)log(n+m)) in general for two transportable and rotatable 2D polygon.
I hope it can help you, if you are searching for such an irregular algorithm in computational geometry.
This might help. It comes with the source code written Java
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~athens/cs507/Projects/2003/DanielSud/
I am interested in using shapes like these:
Usually a tangram is made of 7 shapes(5 triangles, 1 square and 1 parallelogram).
What I want to do is fill a shape only with tangram shapes, so at this point,
the size and repetition of shapes shouldn't matter.
Here's something I manually tried:
I am a bit lost on how to approach this.
Assuming I have a path (an ordered list/array of points of the outline),
I imagine I should try to do some sort of triangulation.
Is there such a thing as Deulanay triangulation with triangles constrained to 45 degrees
right angled triangles ?
A more 'brute' approach would be to add a bunch of triangles(45 degrees) and use SAT
for collision detection to 'fix' overlaps, and hopefully gaps will be avoided.
Since the square and parallelogram can be made of triangles(45 degrees) too, I imagine there
would be a nice clean geometric solution, right ?
How do I pack triangles(45 degrees) inside an arbitrary shape ?
Any ideas are welcome.
A few random thoughts (maybe they help you find a better solution) if you're using only the original sizes of the shapes:
as you point out, all shapes in the tangram can be made composed of e.g. the yellow or pink triangle (d-g-c), so try also thinking of a bottom-up approach such as first trying to place as many yellow triangles into your shape and then combine them into larger shapes if possible. In the worst case, you'll end up with a set of these smallest triangles.
any kind triangulation of non-polygons (such as the half-moon in your example) probably does not work very well...
It looks like you require that the shapes can only have a few discrete orientations. To find the best fit of these triangles into the given shape, I'd propose the following approximate solution: draw a grid of triangles (i.e. a square grid with diagonal lines) across the shape and take those triangles which are fully contained. This most likely will not give you the optimal coverage but then you could repeatedly shift the grid by a tenth of the grid size in horizontal and vertical direction and see whether you'll find something which covers a larger fraction of the original shape (or you could go in steps of 1/2 then 1/4 etc. of the original grid size in the spirit of a binary search).
If you allow any arbitrary scaling of the shapes you could approximate any (reasonably smooth ?) shape to arbitrary precision by adding smaller and smaller shapes. E.g. if you have a raster image, you can e.g. choose the size of the yellow triangle such that two of them make a pixel on the image and then you can represent any such raster image.