I want to create tree with predefined depths with D3.
Is there a way to set depth before tree is generated?
It depends on your definition of “tree”. D3 has several hierarchy layouts, of which d3.layout.tree is one. The tree layout refers to Reingold–Tilford’s tidy tree layout algorithm. This particular algorithm is not conducive to customizing the depth of nodes because it assumes that all siblings are the same depth (so that it can place the nodes tidily).
The d3.layout.cluster, in contrast, can be easily modified to render nodes at custom depths. Simply ignore the generated d.y coordinate and substitute your own depth value (probably in conjunction with a linear scale to map from data to pixels). For an example of this technique, see Ken-ichi Ueda’s right-angle phylograms.
Related
So what I want to do is render each material 1 at a time. Which means that each Material will have it's own vertices. Is there some kind of function within Assimp when I process a mesh that will tell me which material the vertices belong to.
Of course I would put the position, the normal and the texCoord in the vertex and I need the induces.
There is no query to get these meshes implemented in Asset-Importer-Lib right now. But you can write this easily by yourself:
Import your model
Check whether there are any meshes loaded
Loop over all meshes stored in aiScene
Sort them for meshes with the same material index
Loop over all vertices of the list of meshes.
I wrote a blog-post about that: Batch-Rendering for Assimp-Scene
I have a graph made in cytoscape.js, using the dagre extension, that looks like this:
Graph
How can I get the parent nodes to line up vertically? Since applying a separate layout to only parent nodes does not work (it applies to all nodes), I am stumped.
Unfortunately they are all poorly maintained visualization algorithms, so they don't have as many features.
I suggest you to open an issue in the algorithm repository where you explain how it can be improved.
In this case you would like to have a better aspect of the visualization.
https://github.com/cytoscape/cytoscape.js-dagre
You can also contribute to the dagre project adding this aesthetic criteria on to the graph.
At the end if you would like to have a better aspect you can apply a tweek to the graph after the layout execution.
So you can think to an algorithm for making parent nodes line up vertically and then apply in the code.
For example something you can do for having nodes nearest to their father and also a good aspect ratio you can sort nodes in the level n + 1 in the barycenter of their father in the lever n.
(let me know if I have made it clear)
I saw from the photo that you have groups, and the nodes within the group have different fathers, so if you put the nodes aligned with their fathers then you could have
Nodes that are overlapping
overlapping groups
groups with too large a width
(let me know if I have made the problem clear)
I remember you how to position nodes in cytoscape.js
cyGraph.startBatch(); // for bach the differences and apply only once at the end
// random layout. you have to use yours
cyGraph.nodes().positions(( node, i ) => {
return {
x: Math.random() * cyGraph.width(),
y: Math.random() * cyGraph.height(),
};
});
cyGraph.endBatch();
If this question would be more appropriate on a related site, let me know, and I'd be happy to move it.
I have 165 vertices in ℤ11, all of which are at a distance of √8 from the origin and are extreme points on their corresponding convex hull. CGAL is able to calculate their d-dimensional triangulation in only 133 minutes on my laptop using just under a gigabyte of RAM.
Magma manages a similar 66 vertex case quite quickly, and, crucially for my application, it returns an actual polytope instead of a triangulation. Thus, I can view each d-dimensional face as a single object which can be bounded by an arbitrary number of vertices.
Additionally, although less essential to my application, I can also use Graph : TorPol -> GrphUnd to calculate all the topological information regarding how those faces are connected, and then AutomorphismGroup : Grph -> GrpPerm, ... to find the corresponding automorphism group of that cell structure.
Unfortunately, when applied to the original polytope, Magma's AutomorphismGroup : TorPol -> GrpMat only returns subgroups of GLd(ℤ), instead of the full automorphism group G, which is what I'm truly hoping to calculate. As a matrix group, G ∉ GL11(ℤ), but is instead ∈ GL11(𝔸), where 𝔸 represents the algebraic numbers. In general, I won't need the full algebraic closure of the rationals, ℚ̅, but just some field extension. However, I could make use of any non-trivially powerful representation of G.
With two days of calculation, Magma can manage the 165 vertex case, but is only able to provide information about the polytope's original 165 vertices, 10-facets, and volume. However, attempting to enumerate the d-faces, for any 2 ≤ d < 10, quickly consumes the 256 GB of RAM I have at my disposal.
CGAL's triangulation, on the other hand, only calculates collections of d-simplices, all of which have d + 1 vertices. It seems possible to derive the same facial information from such a triangulation, but I haven't thought of an easy way to code that up.
Am I missing something obvious in CGAL? Do you have any suggestions for alternative ways to calculate the polytope's face information, or to find the full automorphism group of my set of points?
You can use the package Combinatorial maps in CGAL, that is able to represent polytopes in nD. A combinatorial map describes all cells and all incidence and adjacency relations between the cells.
In this package, there is an undocumented method are_cc_isomorphic allowing to test if an isomorphism exist from two starting points. I think you can use this method from all possible pair of starting points to find all automorphisms.
Unfortunatly, there is no method to build a combinatorial map from a dD triangulation. Such method exists in 3D (cf. this file). It can be extended in dD.
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.
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.