I want to split a mesh into sections based on a number of vertices. Essentially, I want a mesh cut into sections of 300 verts each with a remainder section of whatever is left over.
I've done this for the most part (i can get verts/faces, etc) but I'm having trouble figuring a graceful way of iterating through the extracted meshes.
I'm using polyChipOff which has no return value for the faces it chipped, so it's entirely new objects that are created that i have no handle to so i can't just continue chipping away from the previous piece as it no longer exists.
Any advice on how to go about this better?
I've thought of either iterating through all meshes in the scene for new ones (cache them at the start) or using a scriptJob to detect new objects being made. Both of those seem very hacky so was curious if anyone had advice.
You can try this method:
import maya.cmds as cmds
shape = cmds.listRelatives(p=True)
object = cmds.listRelatives(a, p=True)
selectedFace = cmds.ls(sl=True)
cmds.select(object[0] + '.f[:]', tgl=True)
unselecetedFace = cmds.ls(sl=True)
duplicated = cmds.duplicate(object, un=True)[0]
cmds.delete(duplicated, ch=True)
cmds.delete(selectedFace)
for i in range(len(unselecetedFace)):
unselecetedFace[i] = unselecetedFace[i].replace(object[0],duplicated)
cmds.delete(unselecetedFace)
cmds.select(duplicated)
Related
I've followed "Procedural Generation in Godot: Dungeon Generation" by KidsCanCode #https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3fwlk1NI-w and find myself unable to debug the current problem.
This specific commit has the code, but I'll try to explain in more detail bellow.
My main scene has a Camera2D node, a generic Node2D calles Rooms and a TileMap, everything is empty.
When the script starts, it runs a
func make_room(_pos, _size):
position = _pos
size = _size
var s = RectangleShape2D.new()
s.custom_solver_bias = 0.5
s.extents = size
$CollisionShape2D.shape = s
A few times and it fills $Rooms using .add_child(r) where r is a instance of the node that has the make_room() function. It will then iterate over $Rooms.get_children() a few times to create a AStar node to link all the rooms:
The magic comes when make_map() is called after afterwards, it fills the map with non-walkable blocks and then it carves the empty spaces, which works fine too:
There is a find_start_room() that is called to find the initial room, it also sets a global variable to the Main script start_room, which is used to write 'Start' on the map using draw_string(font, start_room.position - Vector2(125,0),"start",Color(3,4,8))
When I hit 'esc' it runs this simple code to instance the player:
player = Player.instance()
add_child(player)
player.position = start_room.position + Vector2(start_room.size.x/2, start_room.size.y/2)
play_mode = true
The problem comes when spawning the player. I tried doing some 'blind' fixing, such as adding or subtracting a Vector2(start_room.size.x/2, start_room.size.y/2) to player.position to see if I could make it fall within the room, to no avail.
Turning to the debugger didn't help, as the positions expressed by the variable inspectors don't seem to mean anything.
I tried implementing a simple 'mouse click print location':
print("Mouse Click/Unclick at: ", event.position)
print("Node thing",get_node("/root/Main/TileMap").world_to_map(event.position))
And also a 'start_room' print location:
print(get_node("/root/Main/TileMap").world_to_map(start_room.position))
And a when player moves print location, written directly into the Character script:
print(get_node("/root/Main/TileMap").world_to_map(self.position))
Getting results like the ones bellow:
Mouse Click/Unclick at: (518, 293)
Node thing(16, 9)
(-142, 0)
(-147, -3)
So, the player doesn't spawn on the same position as the start_room and the mouse position information is not the same as anything else.
Why is the player now spawning correctly? How can I debug this situation?
EDIT1: User Theraot mentioned about how the RigidBody2D is doing some weird collisions, and from what I understood, changing their collision behavior should fix the whole thing.
There's a section on the code that -after generating the random rooms- it removes some of the rooms like this:
for room in $Rooms.get_children():
if randf() < cull:
room.queue_free()
else:
room.mode = RigidBody2D.MODE_STATIC
room_positions.append(Vector3(room.position.x, room.position.y, 0))
From what I understand, if the room is randomly selected it will be deleted using queue_free() OR it will be appended to a room_positions for further processing. This means if I shift all the rooms to a different collision layer, the player/character instance would be alone with the TileMap on the same collision layer.
So I just added a simple room.collision_layer = 3 changing this section of the code to
for room in $Rooms.get_children():
if randf() < cull:
room.queue_free()
else:
room.mode = RigidBody2D.MODE_STATIC
room.collision_layer = 3
room_positions.append(Vector3(room.position.x, room.position.y, 0))
It doesn't seem to have changed anything, the player still spawns outside the room.
Do you see the rooms spread outwards?
You didn't write code to move the rooms. Sure, the code gives them a random position. But even if you set their position to Vector2.ZERO they move outwards, avoiding overlaps.
Why? Because these rooms are RigidBody2D, and they do push other physics objects. Such as other rooms or the player character.
That's the problem: These rooms are RigidBody2D, and you put your KinematicBody2D player character on top of one of them. The RigidBody2D pushes it out.
The tutorial you followed is exploiting this behavior of RigidBody2Ds to spread the rooms. However you don't need these RigidBody2D after you are done populating your TileMap.
Instead, you can store the start position in a variable for later placing the player character (you don't need offsets - by the way - the position of the room is the center of the room), and then remove the RigidBody2Ds. If you want to keep the code that writes the text, you would also have to modify it, so it does not fail when the room no longer exists.
Alternatively, you can edit their collision layer and mask so they don't collide with the player character (or anything for that matter, but why would you want these RigidBody2Ds that collide with nothing?).
Addendum post edit: Collision layers and mask don't work as you expect.
First of all, the collision layer and mask are flags. The values of the layers are powers of two (1, 2, 4, 8...). So, when you set it to 3, it is the layer 1 plus the layer 2. So it still collides with a collision mask of 1.
And second, even if you changed the collision layer of the rooms to 2 (so it does not match the collision mask of 1 that the player character has). The player character still has a layer 1 which match the collision mask of the rooms.
See also the proposal Make physics layers and masks logic simple and consistent.
Thus, you would need to change the layer and mask. Both. in such way that they don't collide. For example, you can set layer and mask to 0 (which disable all collisions). The algorithm that populates the TileMap does not use the layer and mask.
I iterate over finie_vertieces, finite_edges and finite_faces after generating constrained delauny triangulation with Loyd optimization. I am on VS2012 using CGAL 4.12 under release mode. I see for a given case finite_verices list is repeatable (so is the vertex list under finite_faces), however, the ordering of the edges in finite_edges seems to change from run to run
for(auto eit = cdtp.finite_edges_begin(); eit != cdtp.finite_edges_end(); ++eit)
{
const auto isConstrainedEdge = cdtp.is_constrained(*eit);
auto & cFace = *(eit->first);
auto cwVert = cFace.vertex(cFace.cw(eit->second));
auto ccwVert = cFace.vertex(cFace.ccw(eit->second));
I use the above code snippet to extract vertex list, and vertex list with a given edge changes from run to run.
Any help is appreciated resolving this, as I am looking for consistent behavior in the code. My triangulation involves many line constraints on a two dimensional domain.
I was told it's likely dependable behaviour, but there is no guarantee of order. IIRC the documentation says the traversal order is not guaranteed. I think it's best to assume the iterators' transversal is not deterministic and could change.
You could use any of the _info extensions to embed information into the face, edge, etc (a hash perhaps?) which you could then check against to detect a change.
In my use case, I wanted to traverse the mesh in parallel and OpenMP didn't support the iterators. So I hold a vector of the Face_handles in memory which I can then easily index over. In conjunction with the _info data, you could use this to build a vector of edges,faces, etc with a guaranteed order using unique information in the ->info() field.
Another _info example.
I am seeking a solution of connecting all the lines that have the same slope and share a common point. For example, after I load a STL file and cut it using a plane, the cutter output includes the points defining the contour. Connecting them one by one forms a (or multiple) polyline. However, some lines can be merged when their slopes are the same and they share a common point. E.g., [[0,0,0],[0,0,1]] and [[0,0,1],[0,0,2]] can be represented by one single line [[0,0,0],[0,0,2]].
I wrote a function that can analyse all the lines and connect them if they can be merged. But when the number of lines are huge, this process is slow. I am thinking in the VTK pipeline, is there a way to do the line merging?
Cheers!
plane = vtk.vtkPlane()
plane.SetOrigin([0,0,5])
plane.SetNormal([0,0,1])
cutter = vtk.vtkCutter()
cutter.SetCutFunction(plane)
cutter.SetInput(triangleFilter.GetOutput())
cutter.Update()
cutStrips = vtk.vtkStripper()
cutStrips.SetInputConnection(cutter.GetOutputPort())
cutStrips.Update()
cleanDataFilter = vtk.vtkCleanPolyData()
cleanDataFilter.AddInput(cutStrips.GetOutput())
cleanDataFilter.Update()
cleanData = cleanDataFilter.GetOutput()
print cleanData.GetPoint(0)
print cleanData.GetPoint(1)
print cleanData.GetPoint(2)
print cleanData.GetPoint(3)
print cleanData.GetPoint(4)
The output is:
(0.0, 0.0, 5.0)
(5.0, 0.0, 5.0)
(10.0, 0.0, 5.0)
(10.0, 5.0, 5.0)
(10.0, 10.0, 5.0)
Connect the above points one by one will form a polyline representing the cut result. As we can see, the line [point0, point1] and [point1, point2] can be merged.
Below is the code for merging the lines:
Assume that the LINES are represented by list: [[(p0),(p1)],[(p1),(p2)],[(p2),(p3)],...]
appended = 0
CurrentLine = LINES[0]
CurrentConnectedLine = CurrentLine
tempLineCollection = LINES[1:len(LINES)]
while True:
for HL in tempLineCollection:
QCoreApplication.processEvents()
if checkParallelAndConnect(CurrentConnectedLine, HL):
appended = 1
LINES.remove(HL)
CurrentConnectedLine = ConnectLines(CurrentConnectedLine, HL)
processedPool.append(CurrentConnectedLine)
if len(tempLineCollection) == 1:
processedPool.append(tempLineCollection[0])
LINES.remove(CurrentLine)
if len(LINES) >= 2:
CurrentLine = LINES[0]
CurrentConnectedLine = CurrentLine
tempLineCollection = LINES[1:len(LINES)]
appended = 0
else:
break
Solution:
I figured out a way of further accelerating this process using some vtk data structure. I found out that a polyline line will be stored in a cell, which can be checked by using GetCellType(). Since the point order for a polyline is sorted already, We do not need to search globally which lines are colinear with the current one. For each point on the polyline, I just need to check the point[i-1], point[i], point[i+1]. And if they are colinear, the end of the line will be updated to the next point. This process continues until the end of the polyline is reached. The speed increases by a huge amount compared with the global search approach.
Not sure if it is the main source of slowness (depends on how many positive hits on the colinearity you have), but removing items from a vector is costly (O(n)), since it requires reorganizing the rest of the vector, you should avoid it. But even without hits on colinearity, the LINES.remove(CurrentLine) call is surely slowing things down and there isn't really any need for it - just leave the vector untouched, write the final results to a new vector (processedPool) and get rid of the LINES vector in the end. You can modify your algorithm by making a bool array (vector), initialized at "false" for each item, then when you remove a line, you don't actually remove it, but only mark it as "true" and you skip all lines for which you have "true", i.e. something like this (I don't speak python so the syntax is not accurate):
wasRemoved = bool vector of the size of LINES initialized at false for each entry
for CurrentLineIndex = 0; CurrentLineIndex < sizeof(LINES); CurrentLineIndex++
if (wasRemoved[CurrentLineIndex])
continue // skip a segment that was already removed
CurrentConnectedLine = LINES[CurrentLineIndex]
for HLIndex = CurrentLineIndex + 1; HLIndex < sizeof(LINES); HLIndex++:
if (wasRemoved[HLIndex])
continue;
HL = LINES[HLIndex]
QCoreApplication.processEvents()
if checkParallelAndConnect(CurrentConnectedLine, HL):
wasRemoved[HLIndex] = true
CurrentConnectedLine = ConnectLines(CurrentConnectedLine, HL)
processedPool.append(CurrentConnectedLine)
wasRemoved[CurrentLineIndex] = true // this is technically not needed since you won't go back in the vector anyway
LINES = processedPool
BTW, the really correct data structure for LINES to use for that kind of algorithm would be a linked list, since then you would have O(1) complexity for removal and you wouldn't need the boolean array. But a quick googling showed that that's not how lists are implemented in Python, also don't know if it would not interfere with other parts of your program. Alternatively, using a set might make it faster (though I would expect times similar to my "bool array" solution), see python 2.7 set and list remove time complexity
If this does not do the trick, I suggest you measure times of individual parts of the program to find the bottleneck.
I'm drawing a canvas programmatically, given a bunch of path data from somewhere else and adding it to the canvas as
// This is actually done more elaborately, but will do for now
PathFigureCollection figures = GetPathFigureCollection();
var path = new Path
{
Data = new PathGeometry { Figures = figures },
Fill = GetFill(),
Stroke = GetStroke(),
StrokeThickness = GetThickness()
};
MyCanvas.Children.Add(path);
Now, I have the canvas in a ScrollViewer, so I want to make sure that I can scroll all the way to reveal the entire path (actually paths - I have several, generated the same way) but no further. I tried this:
var drawingWidth = MyCanvas.Children
.OfType<FrameworkElement>()
.Max(e => Canvas.GetLeft(e) + e.ActualWidth);
MyCanvas.Width = drawingWidth;
This works well for some other elements (the drawing also has a few text blocks and ellipses), but for the paths both Canvas.GetLeft(e) and e.ActualWith (as well as some other things I tried like e.RenderSize.Width and e.DesiredSize.With) all return 0. Since the element that extends farthest to the right is a path, this results in a canvas that is too small.
How do I get the width of the Path elements too?
Ha, found it!
Rewriting the LINQ query as a loop, I could cast paths to Path, and use path.Data.Bounds.Right as the right edge of that element.** I might be able to convert the code back to a LINQ query now that I know what I want to do (I always find them more readable than stateful loops...).
I found this when I, after having perused the link provided by markE where, as a side note, it was stated that
If your design requirements allow more rough approximates, then you will find that cubic Bezier curves are always contained within their control points.
So, if I could find the right-most control point of all the path figures in my path, I would be home. Intellisense did the rest of the job for me :)
In my application I am using a stack of 3 filters and adding that to a stillCamera. I am trying to take the image from filter1, its an empty filter so it returns the actual image.
[stillCamera addTarget:filter1];
[filter1 addTarget:filter2];
[filter2 addTarget:filter3];
[filter3 addTarget:cameraView];
When I call capturePhotoAsImageProcessedUpToFilter, it only ever returns an image when I pass it filter3 like below.
[stillCamera capturePhotoAsImageProcessedUpToFilter:filter3 with...
The two examples below never return images
[stillCamera capturePhotoAsImageProcessedUpToFilter:filter1 with...
[stillCamera capturePhotoAsImageProcessedUpToFilter:filter2 with...
Am I doing something wrong? As a fix I am using:
[filter1 imageFromCurrentlyProcessedOutput]
Is there any difference between calling capturePhotoAsImageProcessedUpToFilter and imageFromCurrentlyProcessedOutput?
I think this is a side effect of a memory conservation optimization I tried to put in place last year. For very large images, like photos, what I try to do is destroy the framebuffer that backs each filter as the filtered image progresses through the filter chain. The idea is to try to minimize memory spikes by only having one or two copies of the large image in memory at any point in time.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work as intended much of the time, and because the framebuffers are deleted as the image progresses, only the last filter in the chain ends up having a valid framebuffer to read from. I'm probably going to yank this optimization out at some point in the near future in favor of an internal framebuffer and texture cache, but I'm not sure what can be done in the meantime to read from these intermediary filters in a chain.