I have a rendering application that renders lots and lots of cubes in a 3-dimensional grid. This is inherently inefficient as each cube represents 4 vertices, and often the cubes are adjacent, creating one surface that could be represented by a single rectangle.
To populate the area I use a 3-dimensional array, where a value of 0 denotes empty space and a non-0 value denotes a block.
e.g. (where X denotes where a cube would be placed)
OOOXXXOOOO
OOXXXXXXXO
OOXXXXXXXO
OOXXXXOOOO
would currently be represented as 21 cubes, or 252 triangles, whereas it could easily be represented as (where each letter denotes a part of a rectangle)
OOOAAAOOOO
OOBAAACCCO
OOBAAACCCO
OOBAAAOOOO
which is a mere 3 rectangles, or 26 triangles.
The typical size of these grids is 128x128x128, so it's clear I would benefit from a massive performance boost if I could efficiently reduce the shapes to the fewest rectangles possible in a reasonable amount of time, but I'm stuck for ideas for an algorithm.
Using Dynamic programming - Largest square block would be one option, but it wouldn't result in an optimal answer, although if the solution is too complex to perform efficiently then this would have to be the way to go.
Eventually I will have multiple types of cubes (e.g. green, brown, blue, referenced using different non-0 numbers in the array) so if possible a version that would work with multiple categories would be very helpful.
Maybe something "octree" like:
Build a 64x64x64 grid over your 128x128x128 grid so each cell of the first grid "contains" height cells of the second.
For each cell, of the 64x64x64 grid, proceed like that:
If the height contained cells have the same value, put that value in the 64x64x64 grid.
Else draw each cell individually and put -1 in the 64x64x64 grid.
Now build a 32x32x32 grid over the 64x64x64 one and repeat.
Then 16x16x16, 8x8x8, 4x4x4, 2x2x2, 1x1x1 and you're done :)
Of course, it would be best if the octree was computed once and for all, not for each rendering operation.
Related
What I am asking here is an algorithm question. I'm not asking for specifics of how to do it in the programming language I'm working in or with the framework and libraries I'm currently using. I want to know how to do this in principle.
As a hobby, I am working on an open source virtual reality remake of the 1992 first-person shooter game Wolfenstein 3D. My program will support classic mods and map packs for WOLF3D made in the original format from the 90s. This means that my program will not know in advance what the maps are going to be. They are loaded in at runtime from user provided files.
A Wolfenstein 3D map is a 2D square grid of normally 64x64 tiles. let's assume I have a 2D array of bools which return true if a particular tile can be traversed by the player and false if the tile will never be traversable no matter what happens in the game.
I want to generate rectangular collision objects for a modern game engine which will prevent collisions into non traversable tiles on the map. Right now, I have a small collision object on each surface of each wall tile with a traversible tile next to it and that is very inefficient because it makes way more collision objects than necessary. What I should have instead is a smaller number of large rectangles which fill all of the squares on the grid where that 2D array I mentioned has a false value to indicate non-traversible.
When I search for any algorithms or research that might have been done for problems similar to this, I find lots of information about rectangle packing for the purposes of making texture atlases for games, which packs rectangles into a square, but I haven't found anything that tries to pack the smallest number of rectangles into an arbitrary set of selected / marked square tiles.
The naive approach which occurs to me is to first make 64 rectangles representing 64 rows and then chop out whatever squares are traversible. but I suspect that there's got to be an algorithm which can do better, meaning that it can fill the same spaces with a smaller number of rectangles. Maybe something that starts with my naive approach and then checks each rectangle for adjacent rectangles which it could merge with? But I'm not sure how far to take that approach or if it will even truly reduce the number of rectangles.
The result doesn't have to be perfect. I am just fishing here to see if anyone has any magic tricks that could take me even a little bit beyond the naive approach.
Has anyone done this before? What is it called? Just knowing what some of the vocabulary words I would need to even talk about this are would help. Thanks!
(later edit)
Here is some sample input as comma-separated values. The 1s represent the area that must be filled with the rectangles while the 0s represent the area that should not be filled with the rectangles.
I expect that the result would be a list of sets of 4 integers where each set represents a rectangle like this:
First integer would be the x coordinate of the left/western edge of the rectangle.
Second integer would be the y coordinate of the top/northern edge of the rectangle.
Third integer would be the width of the rectangle.
Fourth integer would be the depth of the rectangle.
My program is in C# but I'm sure I can translate anything in a normal mainstream general purpose programming language or psuedocode.
Mark all tiles as not visited
For each tile:
skip if the tile is not a top-left corner or was visited before
# now, the tile is a top-left corner
expand right until top-right corner is found
expand down
save the rectangle
mark all tiles in the rectangle as visited
However simplistic it looks, it will likely generate minimal number of rectangles - simply because we need at least one rectangle per pair of top corners.
For faster downward expansion, it makes sense to precompute a table holding sum of all element top and left from the tile (aka integral image).
For non-overlapping rectangles, worst case complexity for an n x n "image" should not exceed O(n^3). If rectangles can overlap (would result in smaller number of them), integral image optimization is not applicable and the worst case will be O(n^4).
A graphically represented quadtree is a tessellation of a square using differently sized smaller squares. Is there a transformation that deforms the quadtree cells to achieve following 2 contrasting goals?
equalize the cell sizes by deforming them (cell size is measured by area)
close cells in the original quadtree shall be close cells in the transformed result
The final result would be a deformed quadtree where all cell sizes are as similiar in area as possible while neighborhood relationship is maintained as good as possible. In ideal case one could weigh what is more important, equal area or neighborhood.
Motivation
I have a 2d point cloud. To each point a value is associated. Geometrically close points have similar values but the gradient varies over the region. There are regions where the point values are quite constant and there are regions where the values of the points differ more with distance. The quadtree groups points of similar values, i.e. the degree of subdivision is high where the values of near points show large fluctuations. However this splitting of the original square results by definition in differently sized cells. For further processing each cell shall be represented with equal size (=equal area). So I want to shrink larger cells and expand smaller cells and keep the neighborhood relationship. This is of course not possible without loosing some other properties. So one way would be to bend the plane in the 3rd dimension or to accept compromisses, i.e. cells are more equal sized than before and some neighborhood relationships are lost. I am looking for such a solution that deals with compromisses.
Centroidal Voronoi tessellation is not applicable. It leads to equally sized cells but doesn't care about neighborhood.
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.
At the moment I use the slice & dice approach:
get the list of values and labels
calculate the sum of all values
calculate the ratios by dividing every value by the sum
for every list item:
draw a box with height=1 and width=ratio
draw the label on top of the box
Let me restate your question as I understood it.
You know the areas of a bunch of rectangles that you need to draw and fit into a square, and you'd like to do so with the rectangles not having extreme height/width ratios. Each rectangle represents the portion of the total value taken by a given label. The question is to figure out what the shape and positions of those rectangles should be such that they fit perfectly, and each has the required area.
You do not need a perfect answer. Only one that is better than the current, which just slices the square into vertical strips.
Here is my suggestion. Generalize to fitting rectangles in a targt rectangle. (This lets us use recursion.) Also I will assume that the labels have been sorted by area, with the largest first. (Sorting is an easy step to add.) Then figure out the placement of rectangles according to the following recursive rules:
If the first element in the list is more than 1/3 of the area, split the long side of your target rectangle into the first element, and everything else, then recursively fit everything else in the remainder.
Otherwise split your list into two, with the median of the area going into the first list. Divide your target rectangle into two, one for the first list, one for the second. Recursively fill each rectangle.
This should provide a fairly good division for your purposes with most data sets. It should be fairly fast to compute, and only the very smallest rectangle can have a ratio more extreme than 3 to 1.
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.