I am currently creating a feature and patterning it across a flat plane to get the maximum number of features to fit on the plane. I do this frequently enough to warrant building some sort of marcro for this if possible. The issue that I run into is I still have to manually set the spacing between the parts. I want to be able to create a feature and have it determine "best" fit spacing given an area while avoiding overlaps. I have had very little luck finding any resources describing this. Any information or links to potentially helpful resources on this would be much appreciated!
Thank you.
Before, you start the linear pattern bit:
Select the face2 of that feature2, get the outer most loop2 of edges. You can test for that using loop2.IsOuter.
Now:
if the loop has one edge: that means it's a circle and the spacing must superior to the circle's radius
if the loop has more that one edge, that you need to calculate all the distances between the vertices and assume that the largest distance is the safest spacing.
NOTA: If one of the edges is a spline, then you need a different strategy:
You would need to convert the face into a sketch and finds the coordinates of that spline to calculate the highest distances.
Example: The distance between the edges is lower than the distance between summit of the splines. If the linear pattern has the a vertical direction, then spacing has to be superior to the distance between the summit.
When I say distance, I mean the distance projected on the linear pattern direction.
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 ,
Suppose you have a list of 2D points with an orientation assigned to them. Let the set S be defined as:
S={ (x,y,a) | (x,y) is a 2D point, a is an orientation (an angle) }.
Given an element s of S, we will indicate with s_p the point part and with s_a the angle part. I would like to know if there exist an efficient data structure such that, given a query point q, is able to return all the elements s in S such that
(dist(q_p, s_p) < threshold_1) AND (angle_diff(q_a, s_a) < threshold_2) (1)
where dist(p1,p2), with p1,p2 2D points, is the euclidean distance, and angle_diff(a1,a2), with a1,a2 angles, is the difference between angles (taken to be the smallest one). The data structure should be efficient w.r.t. insertion/deletion of elements and the search as defined above. The number of vectors can grow up to 10.000 and more, but take this with a grain of salt.
Now suppose to change the above requirement: instead of using the condition (1), let's request all the elements of S such that, given a distance function d, we want all elements of S such that d(q,s) < threshold. If i remember well, this last setup is called range-search. I don't know if the first case can be transformed in the second.
For the distance search I believe the accepted best method is a Binary Space Partition tree. This can be stored as a series of bits. Each two bits (for a 2D tree) or three bits (for a 3D tree) subdivides the space one more level, increasing resolution.
Using a BSP, locating a set of objects to compare distances with is pretty easy. Just find the smallest set of squares or cubes which contain the edges of your distance box.
For the angle, I don't know of anything. I suppose that you could store each object in a second list or tree sorted by its angle. Then you would find every object at the proper distance using the BSP, every object at the proper angles using the angle tree, then do a set intersection.
You have effectively described a "three dimensional cyclindrical space", ie. a space that is locally three dimensional but where one dimension is topologically cyclic. In other words, it is locally flat and may be modeled as the boundary of a four-dimensional object C4 in (x, y, z, w) defined by
z^2 + w^2 = 1
where
a = arctan(w/z)
With this model, the space defined by your constraints is a 2-dimensional cylinder wrapped "lengthwise" around a cross section wedge, where the wedge wraps around the 4-d cylindrical space with an angle of 2 * threshold_2. This can be modeled using a "modified k-d tree" approach (modified 3-d tree), where the data structure is not a tree but actually a graph (it has cycles). You can still partition this space into cells with hyperplane separation, but traveling along the curve defined by (z, w) in the positive direction may encounter a point encountered in the negative direction. The tree should be modified to actually lead to these nodes from both directions, so that the edges are bidirectional (in the z-w curve direction - the others are obviously still unidirectional).
These cycles do not change the effectiveness of the data structure in locating nearby points or allowing your constraint search. In fact, for the most part, those algorithms are only slightly modified (the simplest approach being to hold a visited node data structure to prevent cycles in the search - you test the next neighbors about to be searched).
This will work especially well for your criteria, since the region you define is effectively bounded by these axis-defined hyperplane-bounded cells of a k-d tree, and so the search termination will leave a region on average populated around pi / 4 percent of the area.
I have a set of vectors in multidimensional space (may be several thousands of dimensions). In this space, I can calculate distance between 2 vectors (as a cosine of the angle between them, if it matters). What I want is to visualize these vectors keeping the distance. That is, if vector a is closer to vector b than to vector c in multidimensional space, it also must be closer to it on 2-dimensional plot. Is there any kind of diagram that can clearly depict it?
I don't think so. Imagine any twodimensional picture of a tetrahedron. There is no way of depicting the four vertices in two dimensions with equal distances from each other. So you will have a hard time trying to depict more than three n-dimensional vectors in 2 dimensions conserving their mutual distances.
(But right now I can't think of a rigorous proof.)
Update:
Ok, second idea, maybe it's dumb: If you try and find clusters of closer associated objects/texts, then calculate the center or mean vector of each cluster. Then you can reduce the problem space. At first find a 2D composition of the clusters that preserves their relative distances. Then insert the primary vectors, only accounting for their relative distances within a cluster and their distance to the center of to two or three closest clusters.
This approach will be ok for a large number of vectors. But it will not be accurate in that there always will be somewhat similar vectors ending up at distant places.
My question is fairly simple. I have two tetrahedra, each with a current position, a linear speed in space, an angular velocity and a center of mass (center of rotation, actually).
Having this data, I am trying to find a (fast) algorithm which would precisely determine (1) whether they would collide at some point in time, and if it is the case, (2) after how much time they collided and (3) the point of collision.
Most people would solve this by doing triangle-triangle collision detection, but this would waste a few CPU cycles on redundant operations such as checking the same edge of one tetrahedron against the same edge of the other tetrahedron upon checking up different triangles. This only means I'll optimize things a bit. Nothing to worry about.
The problem is that I am not aware of any public CCD (continuous collision detection) triangle-triangle algorithm which takes self-rotation in account.
Therefore, I need an algorithm which would be inputted the following data:
vertex data for three triangles
position and center of rotation/mass
linear velocity and angular velocity
And would output the following:
Whether there is a collision
After how much time the collision occurred
In which point in space the collision occurred
Thanks in advance for your help.
The commonly used discrete collision detection would check the triangles of each shape for collision, over successive discrete points in time. While straightforward to compute, it could miss a fast moving object hitting another one, due to the collision happening between discrete points in time tested.
Continuous collision detection would first compute the volumes traced by each triangle over an infinity of time. For a triangle moving at constant speed and without rotation, this volume could look like a triangular prism. CCD would then check for collision between the volumes, and finally trace back if and at what time the triangles actually shared the same space.
When angular velocity is introduced, the volume traced by each triangle no longer looks like a prism. It might look more like the shape of a screw, like a strand of DNA, or some other non-trivial shapes you might get by rotating a triangle around some arbitrary axis while dragging it linearly. Computing the shape of such volume is no easy feat.
One approach might first compute the sphere that contains an entire tetrahedron when it is rotating at the given angular velocity vector, if it was not moving linearly. You can compute a rotation circle for each vertex, and derive the sphere from that. Given a sphere, we can now approximate the extruded CCD volume as a cylinder with the radius of the sphere and progressing along the linear velocity vector. Finding collisions of such cylinders gets us a first approximation for an area to search for collisions in.
A second, complementary approach might attempt to approximate the actual volume traced by each triangle by breaking it down into small, almost-prismatic sub-volumes. It would take the triangle positions at two increments of time, and add surfaces generated by tracing the triangle vertices at those moments. It's an approximation because it connects a straight line rather than an actual curve. For the approximation to avoid gross errors, the duration between each successive moments needs to be short enough such that the triangle only completes a small fraction of a rotation. The duration can be derived from the angular velocity.
The second approach creates many more polygons! You can use the first approach to limit the search volume, and then use the second to get higher precision.
If you're solving this for a game engine, you might find the precision of above sufficient (I would still shudder at the computational cost). If, rather, you're writing a CAD program or working on your thesis, you might find it less than satisfying. In the latter case, you might want to refine the second approach, perhaps by a better geometric description of the volume occupied by a turning, moving triangle -- when limited to a small turn angle.
I have spent quite a lot of time wondering about geometry problems like this one, and it seems like accurate solutions, despite their simple statements, are way too complicated to be practical, even for analogous 2D cases.
But intuitively I see that such solutions do exist when you consider linear translation velocities and linear angular velocities. Don't think you'll find the answer on the web or in any book because what we're talking about here are special, yet complex, cases. An iterative solution is probably what you want anyway -- the rest of the world is satisfied with those, so why shouldn't you be?
If you were trying to collide non-rotating tetrahedra, I'd suggest a taking the Minkowski sum and performing a ray check, but that won't work with rotation.
The best I can come up with is to perform swept-sphere collision using their bounding spheres to give you a range of times to check using bisection or what-have-you.
Here's an outline of a closed-form mathematical approach. Each element of this will be easy to express individually, and the final combination of these would be a closed form expression if one could ever write it out:
1) The equation of motion for each point of the tetrahedra is fairly simple in it's own coordinate system. The motion of the center of mass (CM) will just move smoothly along a straight line and the corner points will rotate around an axis through the CM, assumed to be the z-axis here, so the equation for each corner point (parameterized by time, t) is p = vt + x + r(sin(wt+s)i + cos(wt + s)j ), where v is the vector velocity of the center of mass; r is the radius of the projection onto the x-y plane; i, j, and k are the x, y and z unit vectors; and x and s account for the starting position and phase of rotation at t=0.
2) Note that each object has it's own coordinate system to easily represent the motion, but to compare them you'll need to rotate each into a common coordinate system, which may as well be the coordinate system of the screen. (Note though that the different coordinate systems are fixed in space and not traveling with the tetrahedra.) So determine the rotation matrices and apply them to each trajectory (i.e. the points and CM of each of the tetrahedra).
3) Now you have an equation for each trajectory all within the same coordinate system and you need to find the times of the intersections. This can be found by testing whether any of the line segments from the points to the CM of a tetrahedron intersects the any of the triangles of another. This also has a closed-form expression, as can be found here.
Layering these steps will make for terribly ugly equations, but it wouldn't be hard to solve them computationally (although with the rotation of the tetrahedra you need to be sure not to get stuck in a local minimum). Another option might be to plug it into something like Mathematica to do the cranking for you. (Not all problems have easy answers.)
Sorry I'm not a math boff and have no idea what the correct terminology is. Hope my poor terms don't hide my meaning too much.
Pick some arbitrary timestep.
Compute the bounds of each shape in two dimensions perpendicular to the axis it is moving on for the timestep.
For a timestep:
If the shaft of those bounds for any two objects intersect, half timestep and start recurse in.
A kind of binary search of increasingly fine precision to discover the point at which a finite intersection occurs.
Your problem can be cast into a linear programming problem and solved exactly.
First, suppose (p0,p1,p2,p3) are the vertexes at time t0, and (q0,q1,q2,q3) are the vertexes at time t1 for the first tetrahedron, then in 4d space-time, they fill the following 4d closed volume
V = { (r,t) | (r,t) = a0 (p0,t0) + … + a3 (p3,t0) + b0 (q0,t1) + … + b3 (q3,t1) }
Here the a0...a3 and b0…b3 parameters are in the interval [0,1] and sum to 1:
a0+a1+a2+a3+b0+b1+b2+b3=1
The second tetrahedron is similarly a convex polygon (add a ‘ to everything above to define V’ the 4d volume for that moving tetrahedron.
Now the intersection of two convex polygon is a convex polygon. The first time this happens would satisfy the following linear programming problem:
If (p0,p1,p2,p3) moves to (q0,q1,q2,q3)
and (p0’,p1’,p2’,p3’) moves to (q0’,q1’,q2’,q3’)
then the first time of intersection happens at points/times (r,t):
Minimize t0*(a0+a1+a2+a3)+t1*(b0+b1+b2+b3) subject to
0 <= ak <=1, 0<=bk <=1, 0 <= ak’ <=1, 0<=bk’ <=1, k=0..4
a0*(p0,t0) + … + a3*(p3,t0) + b0*(q0,t1) + … + b3*(q3,t1)
= a0’*(p0’,t0) + … + a3’*(p3’,t0) + b0’*(q0’,t1) + … + b3’*(q3’,t1)
The last is actually 4 equations, one for each dimension of (r,t).
This is a total of 20 linear constraints of the 16 values ak,bk,ak', and bk'.
If there is a solution, then
(r,t)= a0*(p0,t0) + … + a3*(p3,t0) + b0*(q0,t1) + … + b3*(q3,t1)
Is a point of first intersection. Otherwise they do not intersect.
Thought about this in the past but lost interest... The best way to go about solving it would be to abstract out one object.
Make a coordinate system where the first tetrahedron is the center (barycentric coords or a skewed system with one point as the origin) and abstract out the rotation by making the other tetrahedron rotate around the center. This should give you parametric equations if you make the rotation times time.
Add the movement of the center of mass towards the first and its spin and you have a set of equations for movement relative to the first (distance).
Solve for t where the distance equals zero.
Obviously with this method the more effects you add (like wind resistance) the messier the equations get buts its still probably the simplest (almost every other collision technique uses this method of abstraction). The biggest problem is if you add any effects that have feedback with no analytical solution the whole equation becomes unsolvable.
Note: If you go the route of of a skewed system watch out for pitfalls with distance. You must be in the right octant! This method favors vectors and quaternions though, while the barycentric coords favors matrices. So pick whichever your system uses most effectively.