I have a polygon as such:
{0}, {1}, {2}, {3},... denote the sequence of the points on the polygon.
I wonder whether CGAL polygon boolean set-operations work with polygon as such?
From the user manual, the input polygon must be simple or relatively simple in order for the CGAL polygon boolean set-operations to work:
A relatively simple polygon allows vertices with a degree >2, but all
of its edges are disjoint in their interior. Furthermore, it must be
an orientable polygon. Namely when it is inserted into an arrangement
and its outer boundary is traversed, the same face is adjacent to all
of the halfedges (no crossing over any curve during the traversal).
Note that while polygon C has the same curves as polygon B, traversal
of the curves leads to crossing over a previously traversed curve, and
is therefore neither simple nor relatively simple.
Not sure what it really means, but my guess is that the polygon is still ( at least) relatively simple, and hence the CGAL polygon boolean operation still works... am I right?
If you look at the condition for a valid polygon in the user manual, you'll see that the input polygon must be simple. Yours is not since you have a duplicated edge.
Related
I use contract_until_convergence function from CGAL Mean_curvature_flow_skeletonization to produce skeleton from input polygon.
https://doc.cgal.org/latest/Surface_mesh_skeletonization/classCGAL_1_1Mean__curvature__flow__skeletonization.html
In some cases the skeleton creates branches (see top of the image above, skeleton in red color) that does not exist in input polygon. Is there some parameters to set to prevent this ?
using Skeletonization = CGAL::Mean_curvature_flow_skeletonization<Polyhedron>;
Skeletonization mean_curve_skeletonizer(polyhedron);
mean_curve_skeletonizer.contract_until_convergence();
There are two parameters controlling the quality of the skeleton:
quality_speed_tradeoff()
medially_centered_speed_tradeoff()
Also one thing that affect the skeleton is the sampling of the input surface that is used to compute Voronoi poles. In the original papers, it is said: Given a sufficiently good sampling, the Voronoi poles [ACK00] form a provably convergent sampling of the medial axis.
[ACK00]AMENTAN., CHOIS., KOLLURIR. K.: The powercrust, unions of balls, and the medial axis transform. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications 19(2000), 127–153.3
You can use the function isotropic_remeshing with a sufficiently small target edge length to improve the Voronoi pole computation.
Say I want to construct a 3D cubic Bézier curve, and I already have both end-points, and the direction (normal vector) for both control points. How can I choose the distance of both control points to their respective end-points in order to make the curve as 'nicely rounded' as possible?
To formalize 'nicely rounded': I think that means maximizing the smallest angle between any two segments in the curve. For example, having end-points (10, 0, 0) and (0, 10, 0) with respective normal vectors (0, 1, 0) and (1, 0, 0) should result in a 90° circular arc. For the specific case of 2D circular arcs, I've found articles like this one. But I haven't been able to find anything for my more general case.
(Note that these images are just to illustrate the 'roundness' concept. My curves are not guaranteed to be plane-aligned. I may replace the images later to better illustrate that point.)
This is a question of aesthetics, and if the real solution is unknown or too complicated, I would be happy with a reasonable approximation. My current approximation is too simplistic: choosing half the distance between the two end-points for both control point distances. Someone more familiar with the math will probably be able to come up with something better.
(PS: This is for open-source software, and I would be happy to give credit on GitHub.)
Edit: Here are some other images to illustrate a 3D case (jsfiddle):
Edit 2: Here's a screenshot of an unstable version of ApiNATOMY to give you an idea of what I'm trying to do. I'm creating 3D tubes to represent blood-vessels, connecting different parts of an anatomical schematic:
(They won't let me put in a jsfiddle link if I don't include code...)
What you are basically asking is to have curvature over the spline as constant as possible.
A curve with constant curvature is just a circular arc, so it makes sense to try to fit such an arc to your input parameters. In 2D, this is easy: construct the line which goes through your starting point and is orthogonal to the desired direction vector. Do the same for the ending point. Now intersect these two lines: the result is the center of the circle which passes through the two points with the desired direction vectors.
In your example, this intersection point would just be (0,0), and the desired circular arc lies on the unit circle.
So this gives you a circular arc, which you can either use directly or use the approximation algorithm which you have already cited.
This breaks down when the two direction vectors are collinear, so you'd have to fudge it a bit if this ever comes up. If they point at each other, you can simply use a straight line.
In 3D, the same construction gives you two planes passing through the end points. Intersect these, and you get a line; on this line, choose the point which minimizes the sum of squared distances to the two points. This gives you the center of a sphere which touches both end points, and now you can simply work in the plane spanned by these three points and proceed as in 2D.
For the special case where your two end points and the two known normal vector for the control points happen to make the Bezier curve a planar one, then basically you are looking for a cubic Bezier curve that can well approximate a circular arc. For this special case, you can set the distance (denoted as L) between the control point and their respective end point as L = (4/3)*tan(A/4) where A is the angle of the circular arc.
For the general 3D case, perhaps you can apply the same formula as:
compute the angle between the two normal vectors.
use L=(4/3)*tan(A/4) to decide the location of your control points.
if your normals are aligned in a plane
What you're basically doing here is creating an elliptical arc, in 3D, where the "it's in 3D" part is completely irrelevant, since it's just a 2D curve, rotated/translated to sit in your 3D space. So let's just solve the 2D case, and then the RT is entirely up to you.
Creating the "perfect" cubic Bezier between two points on an arc comes with limitations. You basically can't create good looking arcs that span more than a quarter circle. So, with that said: your start and end point normals give you a 2D angle between your normal vectors, which is the same angle as between your start and end tangents (since normals are perpendicular to tangents). So, let's:
align our curve so that the tangent at the start is 0
plug the angle between tangents into the formula given in the section on Circle approximation in the Primer on Bezier curves. This is basically just dumb "implementing the formula for c1x/c1y/c2x/c2y as a function that takes an angle as argument, and spits out four values as c1(x,y) and c2(x,y) coordinats".
There is no step 3, we're done.
After step 2, you have your control points in 2D to create the most circular arc between a start and end point. Now you just need to scale/rotate/translate it in 3D so that it lines up with where you needed your start and end point to begin with.
if your normals are not aligned in a plane
Now we have a problem, although one that we can deal with by treating the dimensions as separate things entirely. Instead of creating a single 2D curve, we're going to create three: one that's the X/Y projection, one that's the X/Z projection, and one that's the Y/Z projection. For all three of these, we're going to abstract the control points in exactly the same way as before, and then we simply take the projective control points (three for each control point), and then go "okay, we now have X, Y, and Z projective coordinates. That means we have (X,Y,Z) coordinates", and done again.
I'm needing to implement a Minkowski sum function that can return the Minkowski sum of either 2 circles, 2 convex polygons or a circle and a convex polygon. I found this thread that explained how to do this for convex polygons, but I'm not sure how to do this for a circle and polygon. Also, how would I even represent the answer?! I'd like the algorithm to run in O(n) time but beggars can't be choosers.
Circle is trivial -- just add the center points, and add the radii. Circle + ConvexPoly is nearly as simple: move each segment perpendicularly outward by the circle radius, and connect adjacent segments with circular arcs centered at the original poly vertices. Translate the whole by the circle center point.
As for how you represent the answer: Well, it depends on what you want to do with it. You could convert it to a NURBS if you just want to draw it with a vector drawing library. You could approximate the circular arcs with polylines if you just want a polygonal approximation. Or you might store it as is -- "this polygon, expanded by such-and-such a radius". That would be the best choice for things like raycasting, for instance. Or as a compromise, you could connect adjacent segments linearly instead of with circular arcs, and store it as the union of the (new) convex polygon and a list of circles at the vertices.
Oh, about ConvexPoly + ConvexPoly. That's the trickiest one, but still straightforward. The basic idea is that you take the list of segment vectors for each polygon (starting from some particular extremal point, like the point on each poly with the lowest X coordinate), then merge the two lists together, keeping it sorted by angle. Sum the two points you started with, then apply each vector from the merged vector list to produce the other points.
I have a number of 2D (possibly intersecting) polygons which I rendered using OpenGL ES on the screen. All the polygons are completely contained within the screen. What is the most timely way to find the percentage area of the union of these polygons to the total screen area? Timeliness is required as I have a requirement for the coverage area to be immediately updated whenever a polygon is shifted.
Currently, I am representing each polygon as a 2D array of booleans. Using a point-in-polygon function (from a geometry package), I sample each point (x,y) on the screen to check if it belongs to the polygon, and set polygon[x][y] = true if so, false otherwise.
After doing that to all the polygons in the screen, I loop through all the screen pixels again, and check through each polygon array, counting that pixel as "covered" if any polygon has its polygon[x][y] value set to true.
This works, but the performance is not ideal as the number of polygons increases. Are there any better ways to do this, using open-source libraries if possible? I thought of:
(1) Unioning the polygons to get one or more non-overlapping polygons. Then compute the area of each polygon using the standard area-of-polygon formula. Then sum them up. Not sure how to get this to work?
(2) Using OpenGL somehow. Imagine that I am rendering all these polygons with a single color. Is it possible to count the number of pixels on the screen buffer with that certain color? This would really sound like a nice solution.
Any efficient means for doing this?
If you know background color and all polygons have other colors, you can read all pixels from framebuffer glReadPixels() and simply count all pixels that have color different than background.
If first condition is not met you may consider creating custom framebuffer and render all polygons with the same color (For example (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) for backgruond and (1.0, 0.0, 0.0) for polygons). Next, read resulting framebuffer and calculate mean of red color across the whole screen.
If you want to get non-overlapping polygons, you can run a line intersection algorithm. A simple variant is the Bentley–Ottmann algorithm, but even faster algorithms of O(n log n + k) (with n vertices and k crossings) are possible.
Given a line intersection, you can unify two polygons by constructing a vertex connecting both polygons on the intersection point. Then you follow the vertices of one of the polygons inside of the other polygon (you can determine the direction you have to go in using your point-in-polygon function), and remove all vertices and edges until you reach the outside of the polygon. There you repair the polygon by creating a new vertex on the second intersection of the two polygons.
Unless I'm mistaken, this can run in O(n log n + k * p) time where p is the maximum overlap of the polygons.
After unification of the polygons you can use an ordinary area function to calculate the exact area of the polygons.
I think that attempt to calculate area of polygons with number of pixels is too complicated and sometimes inaccurate. You can see something similar in stackoverflow answer about calculation the area covered by a polygon and if you construct regular polygons see area of a regular polygon ,
I'm trying to implement a geometry templating engine. One of the parts is taking a prototypical polygonal mesh and aligning an instantiation with some points in the larger object.
So, the problem is this: given 3d point positions for some (perhaps all) of the verts in a polygonal mesh, find a scaled rotation that minimizes the difference between the transformed verts and the given point positions. I also have a centerpoint that can remain fixed, if that helps. The correspondence between the verts and the 3d locations is fixed.
I'm thinking this could be done by solving for the coefficients of a transformation matrix, but I'm a little unsure how to build the system to solve.
An example of this is a cube. The prototype would be the unit cube, centered at the origin, with vert indices:
4----5
|\ \
| 6----7
| | |
0 | 1 |
\| |
2----3
An example of the vert locations to fit:
v0: 1.243,2.163,-3.426
v1: 4.190,-0.408,-0.485
v2: -1.974,-1.525,-3.426
v3: 0.974,-4.096,-0.485
v5: 1.974,1.525,3.426
v7: -1.243,-2.163,3.426
So, given that prototype and those points, how do I find the single scale factor, and the rotation about x, y, and z that will minimize the distance between the verts and those positions? It would be best for the method to be generalizable to an arbitrary mesh, not just a cube.
Assuming you have all points and their correspondences, you can fine-tune your match by solving the least squares problem:
minimize Norm(T*V-M)
where T is the transformation matrix you are looking for, V are the vertices to fit, and M are the vertices of the prototype. Norm refers to the Frobenius norm. M and V are 3xN matrices where each column is a 3-vector of a vertex of the prototype and corresponding vertex in the fitting vertex set. T is a 3x3 transformation matrix. Then the transformation matrix that minimizes the mean squared error is inverse(V*transpose(V))*V*transpose(M). The resulting matrix will in general not be orthogonal (you wanted one which has no shear), so you can solve a matrix Procrustes problem to find the nearest orthogonal matrix with the SVD.
Now, if you don't know which given points will correspond to which prototype points, the problem you want to solve is called surface registration. This is an active field of research. See for example this paper, which also covers rigid registration, which is what you're after.
If you want to create a mesh on an arbitrary 3D geometry, this is not the way it's typically done.
You should look at octree mesh generation techniques. You'll have better success if you work with a true 3D primitive, which means tetrahedra instead of cubes.
If your geometry is a 3D body, all you'll have is a surface description to start with. Determining "optimal" interior points isn't meaningful, because you don't have any. You'll want them to be arranged in such a way that the tetrahedra inside aren't too distorted, but that's the best you'll be able to do.