I have a region bounded by a set of edges. I took those edges and added them as constraints to a Constrained_Delaunay_triangulation_2. I then performed a refinement step using refine_Delaunay_mesh_2(...). My understanding from
http://www.cgal.org/Manual/latest/doc_html/cgal_manual/Mesh_2_ref/Class_Triangulation_conformer_2.html
is that this may cause my original constraint segments to be split. That document mentions that I can instead use CGAL::Constrained_triangulation_plus_2 which allows my finding the relationship between the original constraints and the final edges. While this path is probably workable for my needs, I would prefer to refine the mesh such that the original boundary constraints are not split at all. Is there a setting for refine_Delaunay_mesh_2 that will disallow the splitting of these edges, or is there a related mesher that will accomplish this?
Thanks for any help.
Usually the constraints have to be split to enhance the quality of triangles in the mesh.
The 2d meshes can be modified not to split edges, though.
You can use classes or functions in the header <CGAL/Delaunay_mesher_no_edge_refinement_2.h>. That is not documented, but that is exactly the CGAL 2D mesher modified not to refine on constrained edges.
Related
I've been using OpenGL for some time now, and I am at a point where I'm doing optimizing of the various aspects of my application.
Here's the problem: In some cases I end up duplicating vertixes for texture mapping. I've been using this book a lot:
http://staff.fit.ac.cy/eng.ap/FALL2017/3d-game-development-with-lwjgl.pdf
You can go to pages 70-71 and see the issue and the suggested solution. Basically, it says that when a vertex needs to have a different texture coord for different faces - you've got to duplicate that vertex.
And that that's the only solution.
But I hesitate - is it? Lots of UV maps will have cases where the coords are cut apart a bit, for vertexes. I.e. vertexes end up having different coords. Duplicating them seems like a huge waste.
Is there a way to do it a different way?
A vertex is not a just a position. A vertex is the whole vector of the position, color, texture coordinate and whatever else attribute you're putting into it.
But I hesitate - is it?
Yes it is. It is also the most efficient way to do this, as is allows for easier caching.
Is there a way to do it a different way?
You could use different arrays for each attribute, then have a primary index array to address into secondary index arrays, one for each attribute, that then do the lookup for each attribute.
Two indirections and very little cache coherence. Overall the overhead of secondary index arrays will consume more memory, than the little overhead of a "few" duplicate position vertices. And you're avoiding double indirection.
Overall, the way some duplicated vertex positions is also the most performant one.
I have been using the cgal library to generate convex hulls which are further used for discrete element simulations. Currently, I am trying to make the polyhedral particles break, which is right now implemented as plane clipping of the polyhedron. The problem is that after several (sometimes even one) clipping, the polyhedrons start having "bad" attributes, such as nearly degenerate faces, nearly coplanar edges or nearly degenerate edges, which cause problems in the contact calculation. I have been looking at CGAL/Surface_mesh_simplification routines and used the edge_collapse function, but it does not preserve convexity of the particles. Is there any way to use routines from cgal for convex polyhedra simplifications while preserving convexity?
You can try using the function isotropic_remeshing(). While there is no guarantee that the output will stay convex, the points are guaranteed to be on the input mesh. If you have some sharp edges you want to preserve, you can specify it to the function and it will take them into account.
I have SVG abirtrary paths which i need to pack as efficiently as possible within a given rectangle(as less waste of space as possible). After some research i found the bin packing algorithms which seems to be dealing with boxes and not curved random shapes(my SVG shapes are quite complex and include beziers etc.).
AFAIK, there is no deterministic algorithm for actually packing abstract shapes.
I wish to be proven wrong here which would be ideal(having a mathematical deterministic method for packing them). In case I am right however and there is not, what would be the best approach to this problem
The subject name is Shape Nesting, Nesting Problem or Nesting Process.
In Shape Nesting there is no single/uniform algorithm or mathematical method for nesting shapes and getting the least space waste possible.
The 1st method is the packing algorithm(creates an imaginary bounding
box for each shape and uses a rectangular 2D algorithm to pack the
bounding boxes).
This method is fast but the least efficient in regards to space
waste.
The 2nd method is some kind of incremental rotation. The algorithm
rotates the shape at incremental steps and checks if it fits in the
space. This is better than the packing method in regards to space
waste but it is painstakingly slow,
What are some other classroom examples for achieving a solution to this problem?
[Edit1] new answer
as mentioned before bin-packing is NP complete (hard) so forget about algebraic solution
known approaches are:
generate and test
either you test all possibility of the problem and remember the best solution or incrementally add items (not all at once) one by one with the same way. It is basically what you are doing now without proper heuristic is unusably slow. But has the best space efficiency (the first one is much better but much slower) O(N!)
take advantage of sorting items by size
something like this it is much faster almost O(N.log(N)) (according to used sorting algorithm). Space efficiency strongly depends on the items size range and count. For rectangular shapes is this the best approach (fastest and usable even for N>1000). For complex shapes is this not a good way but look at it anyway maybe you get some idea ...
use of Neural network
This is extremly vague approach without any warrant of solution but possible best space efficiency/runtime ratio
I think there could be some field approach out there
I sow a few for generating graph layouts. All items create fields (booth attractive and repulsive) so they are moving to semi-stable state.
At first all items are at random locations
When the movement stop remember best solution and shake all items a little or randomize their position again.
Cycle this few times
This approach is much faster then genere and test and can provide very close solution to it but it can hang in local min/max or oscillate if the fields are not optimally choosed. For example all items can have constant attractive force to each other and repulsive force getting stronger only when the items are very close. You have to prevent overlapping of items (either by stronger repulsion or by collision tests). You have also to create some rotation moment for example with that repulsive force. It differs on any vertex so it creates a rotation moment (that can automatically align similar sides closer together). Also you can have semi-stable state with big distances between items and after finding best solution just turn off repulsion fields so they stick together. Sometimes it can have better results some times not ... here is nice example for graph layout computation
Logic to strategically place items in a container with minimum overlapping connections
Demo from the same QA
And here solver for placing sliders in 2D:
How to implement a constraint solver for 2-D geometry?
[Edit0] old answer before reformulating the question
I am not clear what you want to achieve.
have SVG picture and want to separate its parts to rectangular regions
as filled as can be
least empty space in them
no shape change in picture
have svg picture and want to change its shapes according to some purpose
if this is the case some additional info is needed
[solution for 1]
create a list of points for whole SVG in global SVG space (all points are transformed)
for line you need add 2 points
for rectangles 4 points
circle/elipse/bezier/eliptic arc 8 points
find local centres of mass
use classical approach
or can speed things up by computing the average density of points per x,y axis separately and after that just check all combinations of found positions of local max of densities if they really are sub cluster center or not.
all sub cluster center is the center of your region
now find the most far points which are still part of your cluster (the are close enough to neighbour points)
create rectangular area that cover all points from sub cluster.
you also can remove all used points from list
repeat fro all valid sub clusters
until all points are used
another not precise but simpler approach is:
find SVG size
create planar map of svg with some precision for example int map[256][256].
size of map can be constant or with the same aspect as SVG
clear map with 0
for any point of SVG set related map point to 1 (or inc or whatever)
now just segmentate map and you will have find your objects
after segmentation you have position and size of all objects
so finding of bounding boxes should be easy
You can start with a variant of the rectangle bin-packing algorithm and add rotation. There is a method "Guillotine bin packer" and you can download a paper and a library at github.
Sort of a programming question, sort of a general logic question. Imagine a circular base with a pattern of circles:
And another circle, mounted above and able to rotate, with holes that expose the colored circles below:
There must be an optimal pattern of either the colored circles or the openings (or both) that will allow for all N possible combinations of colors... but I have no idea how to attack the problem! At this point, combinations of 2 seem probably the easiest and would be fine as a starting point (red/blue, red/green, red/white, etc).
I would imagine there will need to be gaps in the colors, unlike the example above. Any suggestions welcome!
Edit: clarified the question (hopefully!) thanks to feedback from Robert Harvey
For two holes, you could look for a perfect matching in a bipartite graph, each permutation described by two nodes, one in each partition. Nodes would be connected if they share one element, i.e. the (blue,red) node from the first partition connected to the (red,green) node of the second. The circles arranged in the same distance would allow for both of these patterns. A perfect matching in that graph would correspond to chains or cycles of permutations where two of them always share a single color. A bit like dominoes. If you had a set of cycles of the same length, you could interleave them to form the pattern on the lower disk. I'm not sure how easy it will be to obtain these same length cycles, though, and I also don't know how to generalize this to more than two elements in each permutation.
If I have a graph of a reasonable size (e.g. ~100 nodes, ~40 edges coming out of each node) and I want to represent it in R^3 (i.e. map each node to a point in R^3 and draw a straight line between any two nodes which are connected in the original graph) in a way which would make it easy to understand its structure, what do you think would make a good drawing criterion?
I know this question is ill-posed; it's not objective. The idea behind it is easier to understand with an extreme case. Suppose you have a connected graph in which each node connects to two and only two other nodes, except for two nodes which only connect to one other node. It's not difficult to see that this graph, when drawn in R^3, can be drawn as a straight line (with nodes sprinkled over the line). Nevertheless, it is possible to draw it in a way which makes it almost impossible to see its very simple structure, e.g. by "twisting" it as much as possible around some fixed point in R^3. So, for this simple case, it's clear that a simple 3D representation is that of a straight line. However, it is not clear what this simplicity property is in the general case.
So, the question is: how would you define this simplicity property?
I'm happy with any kind of answer, be it a definition of "simplicity" computable for graphs, or a greedy approximated algorithm which transforms graphs and that converges to "simpler" 3D representations.
Thanks!
EDITED
In the mean time I've put force-based graph drawing ideas suggested in the answer into practice and wrote an OCaml/openGL program to simulate how imposing an electrical repulsive force between nodes (Coulomb's Law) and a spring-like behaviour on edges (Hooke's law) would turn out. I've posted the video on youtube. The video starts with an initial graph of 100 nodes each with approximately 1-2 outgoing edges and places the nodes randomly in 3D space. Then all the forces I mentioned are put into place and the system is left to move around subject to those forces. In the beginning, the graph is a mess and it's very difficult to see the structure. Closer to the end, it is clear that the graph is almost linear. I've also experience with larger-sized graphs but sometimes the geometry of the graph is just a mess and no matter how you plot it, you won't be able to visualise anything. And here is an even more extreme example with 500 nodes.
One simple approach is described, e.g., at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-based_algorithms_%28graph_drawing%29 . The underlying notion of "simplicity" is something like "minimal potential energy", which doesn't really correspond to simplicity in any useful sense but might be good enough in practice.
(If you have 100 nodes of degree 40, I have some doubt as to whether any way of drawing them is going to reveal much in the way of human-accessible structure. That's a lot of edges. Still, good luck!)