In my meshing application I will have to specify fix points within a domain. The idea is that, the fix points must also be the element points after the domain is being meshed.
Furthermore, the elements around the fix points should be more dense. The general concept is that for the fix points, there should exist a radius r around those points, such that the mesh size inside r is of different sizes than outside of the r. The mesh sizes inside and outside of the r should be specifiable.
Are these two things doable in CGAL 2D Mesh algorithm?
Using your wording, all the input point of the initial constrained Delaunay triangulation will be fix points, because the 2D mesh generator only insert new points in the triangulation: it never removes any point.
As for the density, you can copy, paste, and modify a criteria class, such as CGAL::Delaunay_mesh_size_criteria_2<CDT> so that the local size upper bound is smaller around the fix points.
Now, the difficulty is how to implement that new size policy. Your criteria class could store a const reference to another Delaunay_triangulation_2, that contains only the fixed points you want. Then, for each triangle query, you can call nearest_vertex and then actually check if the distance between the query point is smaller that the radius bound of your circles. For a triangle, you can either verify that for only its barycenter, or for all three points of the triangle. Then, according to the result of that/those query(s), you can modify the size bound, in the code of your copy of CGAL::Delaunay_mesh_size_criteria_2<CDT>.
Yes, no points will be removed from the triangulation by the mesher.
Note however that if you insert points too close to a constraint this will induce a refinement of the constraint while it is not Gabriel.
Related
I have a collection of polygons, created with scipy.spatial.Voronoi (specifically, a subset of the Voronoi regions), which I'd like to plot with matplotlib. However, it seems like there are some constraints on the vertex order of the matplotlib polygons, since some of the polygons end up with the fill on the outside of the polygon rather than the inside. In these cases, reversing the order the vertices are specified seems to fix the problem, so it seems to me like a winding issue (even if the docs don't mention anything like this).
However, since some polygons are in the right order and some are in the wrong order, I can't just reverse all the vertex lists, so is there a way I can detect the incorrectly wound lists and fix only those or alternatively a way to get matplotlib to do the equivalent thing automatically?
ImportanceOfBeingErnest's comment put me on the right track, which in turn led me to How to determine if a list of polygon points are in clockwise order?. Basically, we find the bottom-rightmost point in the polygon P, the point A before P, and the point B after P. The sign of the cross product AP x PB gives the winding: positive in case of CCW winding and negative for CW winding.
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 have a 3D model, which consists of the 3D triangular meshes. I want to partition the meshes into different groups. Each group represents a surface, such as a planar face, cylindrical surface. This is something like surface recognition/reconstruction.
The input is a set of 3D triangular meshes. The output is the mesh segmentations per surface.
Is there any library meets my requirement?
If you want to go into lots of mesh processing, then the point cloud library is a good idea, but I'd also suggest CGAL: http://www.cgal.org for more algorithms and loads of structures aimed at meshes.
Lastly, the problem you describe is most easily solved on your own:
enumerate all vertices
enumerate all polygons
create an array of ints with the size of the number of vertices in your "big" mesh, initialize with 0.
create an array of ints with the size of the number of polygons in your "big" mesh, initialize with 0.
initialize a counter to 0
for each polygon in your mesh, look at its vertices and the value that each has in the array.
if the values for each vertex are zero, increase counter and assign to each of the values in the vertex array and polygon array correspondingly.
if not, relabel all vertices and polygons with a higher number to the smallest, non-zero number.
The relabeling can be done quickly with a look up table.
This might save you lots of issues interfacing your code to some library you're not really interested in.
You should have a look at the PCL library, it has all these features and much more: http://pointclouds.org/
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 (relatively new to CGAL and not a C++ expert) am trying to extract the index of the nearest-neighbor 3D points returned from CGAL's surface_neighbor_coordinates_3 (which searches a 2D mesh comprised of 3D points to find natural-neighbors of a provided query-point) in this CGAL example. In other examples (3D interpolation with 3D meshes), I have been able to do this by adding info to vertex handles in the triangulation data structure. In the linked example, I simply wish to retrieve the indices of returned coords with respect to where the points in coords reside index-wise within the input list of points.
The other call-options for surface_neighbor_coordinates_3 seem to suggest this may be possible by passing-in an existing triangulation (with perhaps its info-augmented triangulation-data-structure). However, I'm not sure how to specify the info-augmented Delaunay_triangulation_3 for the case of a 2D mesh consisting of 3D points. I'm experimenting with it (using advancing-front triangulations to 2D-mesh my 3D points) but would like to know if there's some easier way to use the native capabilities of surface_neighbor_coordinates_3 if one only seeks to also have an info field associated with the returned points.
Any help would be greatly appreciated ... this has stumped me for a week.