I am working on implementing Alchemy AO and reading through their paper and they mention to sample each point by: considering a
Disk of radius r and center C that is parallel to the image plane,
select a screen-space point Q uniformly at random on it's project, and
then read a depth or position buffer to find the camera-space scene
point P = (xp, yp, z(Q)) on that ray.
I am wondering how you would go about selecting a screen-space point in the manor? I have made an attempt below but since my result appears quite incorrect, I think it's the wrong approach.
vec3 Position = depthToPosition(uvCoords);
int turns = 16;
float screen_radius = (sampleRadius * 100.0 / Position.z); //ball around the point
const float disk = (2.0 * PI) / turns;
ivec2 px = ivec2(gl_FragCoord.xy);
float phi = (30u * px.x ^ px.y + 10u * px.x * px.y); //per pixel hash for randdom rotation angle at a pixel
for (int i = 0; i < samples; ++i)
{
float theta = disk * float(i+1) + phi;
vec2 samplepoint = vec2(cos(theta), sin(theta));
}
I would like to get the intersection point of a line (defined by a vector and origin) on a triangle.
My engine use right handed coordinate system, so X pointing forward, Y pointing left and Z pointing up.
---- Edit ----
With Antares's help, I convert my points to engine space with:
p0.x = -pt0.y;
p0.y = pt0.z;
p0.z = pt0.x;
But I don't know how to do the same with the direction vector.
I use the function from this stackoverflow question, original poster use this tutorial.
First we look for the distance t from origin to intersection point, in order to find its coordinates.
But I've got a negative t, and code return true when ray is outside the triangle. I set it outside visualy.
It return sometime false when I'm in the triangle.
Here is the fonction I use to get the intersection point, I already checked that it works, with 'classic' values, as in the original post.
float kEpsilon = 0.000001;
V3f crossProduct(V3f point1, V3f point2){
V3f vector;
vector.x = point1.y * point2.z - point2.y * point1.z;
vector.y = point2.x * point1.z - point1.x * point2.z;
vector.z = point1.x * point2.y - point1.y * point2.x;
return vector;
}
float dotProduct(V3f dot1, V3f dot2){
float dot = dot1.x * dot2.x + dot1.y * dot2.y + dot1.z * dot2.z;
return dot;
}
//orig: ray origin, dir: ray direction, Triangle vertices: p0, p1, p2.
bool rayTriangleIntersect(V3f orig, V3f dir, V3f p0, V3f p1, V3f p2){
// compute plane's normal
V3f p0p1, p0p2;
p0p1.x = p1.x - p0.x;
p0p1.y = p1.y - p0.y;
p0p1.z = p1.z - p0.z;
p0p2.x = p2.x - p0.x;
p0p2.y = p2.y - p0.y;
p0p2.z = p2.z - p0.z;
// no need to normalize
V3f N = crossProduct(p0p1, p0p2); // N
// Step 1: finding P
// check if ray and plane are parallel ?
float NdotRayDirection = dotProduct(N, dir); // if the result is 0, the function will return the value false (no intersection).
if (fabs(NdotRayDirection) < kEpsilon){ // almost 0
return false; // they are parallel so they don't intersect !
}
// compute d parameter using equation 2
float d = dotProduct(N, p0);
// compute t (equation P=O+tR P intersection point ray origin O and its direction R)
float t = -((dotProduct(N, orig) - d) / NdotRayDirection);
// check if the triangle is in behind the ray
//if (t < 0){ return false; } // the triangle is behind
// compute the intersection point using equation
V3f P;
P.x = orig.x + t * dir.x;
P.y = orig.y + t * dir.y;
P.z = orig.z + t * dir.z;
// Step 2: inside-outside test
V3f C; // vector perpendicular to triangle's plane
// edge 0
V3f edge0;
edge0.x = p1.x - p0.x;
edge0.y = p1.y - p0.y;
edge0.z = p1.z - p0.z;
V3f vp0;
vp0.x = P.x - p0.x;
vp0.y = P.y - p0.y;
vp0.z = P.z - p0.z;
C = crossProduct(edge0, vp0);
if (dotProduct(N, C) < 0) { return false; }// P is on the right side
// edge 1
V3f edge1;
edge1.x = p2.x - p1.x;
edge1.y = p2.y - p1.y;
edge1.z = p2.z - p1.z;
V3f vp1;
vp1.x = P.x - p1.x;
vp1.y = P.y - p1.y;
vp1.z = P.z - p1.z;
C = crossProduct(edge1, vp1);
if (dotProduct(N, C) < 0) { return false; } // P is on the right side
// edge 2
V3f edge2;
edge2.x = p0.x - p2.x;
edge2.y = p0.y - p2.y;
edge2.z = p0.z - p2.z;
V3f vp2;
vp2.x = P.x - p2.x;
vp2.y = P.y - p2.y;
vp2.z = P.z - p2.z;
C = crossProduct(edge2, vp2);
if (dotProduct(N, C) < 0) { return false; } // P is on the right side;
return true; // this ray hits the triangle
}
My problem is I get t: -52.603783
intersection point P : [-1143.477295, -1053.412842, 49.525799]
This give me, relative to a 640X480 texture, the uv point: [-658, 41].
Probably because my engine use Z pointing up?
My engine use right handed coordinate system, so X pointing forward, Y pointing left and Z pointing up.
You have a slightly incorrect idea of a right handed coordinate system... please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#In_three_dimensions.
As the name suggests, X is pointing right (right hand's thumb to the right), Y is pointing up (straight index finger) and Z (straight middle finger) is pointing "forward" (actually -Z is forward, and Z is backward in the camera coordinate system).
Actually... your coordinate components are right hand sided, but the interpretation as X is forward etc. is unusual.
If you suspect the problem could be with the coordinate system of your engine (OGRE maybe? plain OpenGL? Or something selfmade?), then you need to transform your point and direction coordinates into the coordinate system of your algorithm. The algorithm you presented works in camera coordinate system, if I am not mistaken. Of course you need to transform the resulting intersection point back to the interpretation you use in the engine.
To turn the direction of a vector component around (e.g. the Z coordinate) you can use multiplication with -1 to achieve the effect.
Edit:
One more thing: I realized that the algorithm uses directional vectors as well, not just points. The rearranging of components does only work for points, not directions, if I recall correctly. Maybe you have to do a matrix multiplication with the CameraView transformation matrix (or its inverse M^-1 or was it the transpose M^T, I am not sure). I can't help you there, I hope you can figure it out or just do trial&error.
My problem is I get t: -52.603783
intersection point P : [-1143.477295, -1053.412842, 49.525799] This give me, relative to a 640X480 texture, the uv point: [-658, 41]
I reckon you think your values are incorrect. Which values do you expect to get for t and UV coordinates? Which ones would be "correct" for your input?
Hope this gets you started. GL, HF with your project! :)
#GUNNM: Concerning your feedback that you do not know how to handle the direction vector, here are some ideas that might be useful to you.
As I said, there should be a matrix multiplication way. Look for key words like "transforming directional vector with a matrix" or "transforming normals (normal vectors) with a matrix". This should yield something like: "use the transpose of the used transformation matrix" or "the inverse of the matrix" or something like that.
A workaround could be: You can "convert" a directional vector to a point, by thinking of a direction as "two points" forming a vector: A starting point and another point which lies in the direction you want to point.
The starting point of your ray, you already have available. Now you need to make sure that your directional vector is interpreted as "second point" not as "directional vector".
If your engine handles a ray like in the first case you would have:
Here is my starting point (0,0,0) and here is my directional vector (5,6,-7) (I made those numbers up and take the origin as starting point to have a simple example). So this is just the usual "start + gaze direction" case.
In the second case you would have:
Here is my start at (0,0,0) and my second point is a point on my directional vector (5,6,-7), e.g. any t*direction. Which for t=1 should give exactly the point where your directional vector is pointing to if it is considered a vector (and the start point being the origin (0,0,0)).
Now you need to check how your algorithm is handling that direction. If it does somewhere ray=startpoint+direction, then it interprets it as point + vector, resulting in a movement shift of the starting point while keeping the orientation and direction of the vector.
If it does ray=startpoint-direction then it interprets it as two points from which a directional vector is formed by subtracting.
To make a directional vector from two points you usually just need to subtract them. This gives a "pure direction" though, without defined orientation (which can be +t or -t). So if you need this direction to be fixed, you may take the absolute of your "vector sliding value" t in later computations for example (may be not the best/fastest way of doing it).
I'm having troubles finding a way to calculate a "cross-field" inside an arbitrary polygon.
A Cross field, as defined by one paper is the smoothest field that is tangential to the domain boundary (in this case the polygon) I find it a lot in quad re-topology papers but surprisingly not even in Wikipedia I can find the definition of a Cross field.
I have images but since I'm new here the system said I need at least 10 reputation points to upload images.
Any ideas?
I think it could be something along the lines of an interpolation? given an inner point determine the distance to each edge and integrate or weight sum the tangent and perpendicular vector of every edge by the distance? (or any other factor in fact)
But other simpler approaches may exist?
Thanks in advance!
//I've come up with something like this (for the 3D case), very raw, educational purposes
float ditance2segment(Vector3D p, Vector3D p0, Vector3D p1){
Vector3D v = p1 - p0;
Vector3D w = p - p0;
float c1 = v.Dot(w);
if (c1 <= 0)
return (p - p1).Length();
float c2 = v.Dot(v);
if (c2 <= c1)
return (p - p1).Length();
float b = c1 / c2;
Vector3D pb = p0 + b*v;
return (p - pb).Length();
}
void CrossFieldInterpolation(List<Vector3D>& Contour, List<Vector3D>& ContourN, Vector3D p, Vector3D& crossU, Vector3D& crossV){
int N = Contour.Amount();
for (int i=0; i < N; i++){
Vector3D u = Contour[(i + 1) % N] - Contour[i];
Vector3D n = 0.5*(ContourN[(i + 1) % N] + ContourN[i]);
Vector3D v = -Vector3D::Cross(u,n); //perpendicular vector
u = Vector3D::Normalize(u);
n = Vector3D::Normalize(n);
v = Vector3D::Normalize(v);
float dist = ditance2segment(p, Contour[i], Contour[(i+1)%N]);
crossU += u / (1+dist); //to avoid infinity at points over the segment
crossV += v / (1+dist);
}
crossU = Vector3D::Normalize(crossU);
crossV = Vector3D::Normalize(crossV);
}
You can check the OpenSource Graphite software that I'm developping, it implements the "Periodic Global Parameterization" algorithm [1] that was developed in my research team. You may be also interested in the following research articles with algorithms that we developed more recently [2],[3]
Graphite website:
http://alice.loria.fr/software/graphite
How to use Periodic Global Parameterization:
http://alice.loria.fr/WIKI/index.php/Graphite/PGP
[1] http://alice.loria.fr/index.php/publications.html?Paper=TOG_pgp%402006
[2] http://alice.loria.fr/index.php/publications.html?Paper=DGF#2008
[3] http://alice.loria.fr/index.php/publications.html?redirect=0&Paper=DFD#2008&Author=vallet
Here's the link to the question..
http://www.codechef.com/problems/J7
I figured out that 2 edges have to be equal in order to give the maximum volume, and then used x, x, a*x as the lengths of the three edges to write the equations -
4*x + 4*x + 4*a*x = P (perimeter) and,
2*x^2 + 4*(a*x *x) = S (total area of the box)
so from the first equation I got x in terms of P and a, and then substituted it in the second equation and then got a quadratic equation with the unknown being a. and then I used the greater root of a and got x.
But this method seems to be giving the wrong answer! :|
I know that there isn't any logical error in this. Maybe some formatting error?
Here's the main code that I've written :
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
TheBestBox box = new TheBestBox();
reader = box.new InputReader(System.in);
writer = box.new OutputWriter(System.out);
getAttributes();
writer.flush();
reader.close();
writer.close();
}
public static void getAttributes()
{
t = reader.nextInt(); // t is the number of test cases in the question
for (int i = 0; i < t; i++)
{
p = reader.nextInt(); // p is the perimeter given as input
area = reader.nextInt(); // area of the whole sheet, given as input
a = findRoot(); // the fraction by which the third side differs by the first two
side = (double) p / (4 * (2 + a)); // length of the first and the second sides (equal)
height = a * side; // assuming that the base is a square, the height has to be the side which differs from the other two
// writer.println(side * side * height);
// System.out.printf("%.2f\n", (side * side * height));
writer.println(String.format("%.2f", (side * side * height))); // just printing out the final answer
}
}
public static double findRoot() // the method to find the 2 possible fractions by which the height can differ from the other two sides and return the bigger one of them
{
double a32, b, discriminant, root1, root2;
a32 = 32 * area - p * p;
b = 32 * area - 2 * p * p;
discriminant = Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * 8 * area * a32);
double temp;
temp = 2 * 8 * area;
root1 = (- b + discriminant) / temp;
root2 = (- b - discriminant) / temp;
return Math.max(root1, root2);
}
}
could someone please help me out with this? Thank You. :)
I also got stuck in this question and realized that can be done by making equation of V(volume) in terms of one side say 'l' and using differentiation to find maximum volume in terms of any one side 'l'.
So, equations are like this :-
P = 4(l+b+h);
S = 2(l*b+b*h+l*h);
V = l*b*h;
so equation in l for V = (l^3) - (l^2)P/4 + lS/2 -------equ(1)
After differentiation we get:-
d(V)/d(l) = 3*(l^2) - l*P/2 + S/2;
to get max V we need to equate above equation to zero(0) and get the value of l.
So, solutions to a quadratic equation will be:-
l = ( P + sqrt((P^2)-24S) ) / 24;
so substitute this l in equation(1) to get max volume.
Having searched the web, I see various people in various forums alluding to approximating a cubic curve with a quadratic one. But I can't find the formula.
What I want is this:
input: startX, startY, control1X, control1Y, control2X, control2Y, endX, endY
output: startX, startY, controlX, controlY, endX, endY
Actually, since the starting and ending points will be the same, all I really need is...
input: startX, startY, control1X, control1Y, control2X, control2Y, endX, endY
output: controlX, controlY
As mentioned, going from 4 control points to 3 is normally going to be an approximation. There's only one case where it will be exact - when the cubic bezier curve is actually a degree-elevated quadratic bezier curve.
You can use the degree elevation equations to come up with an approximation. It's simple, and the results are usually pretty good.
Let's call the control points of the cubic Q0..Q3 and the control points of the quadratic P0..P2. Then for degree elevation, the equations are:
Q0 = P0
Q1 = 1/3 P0 + 2/3 P1
Q2 = 2/3 P1 + 1/3 P2
Q3 = P2
In your case you have Q0..Q3 and you're solving for P0..P2. There are two ways to compute P1 from the equations above:
P1 = 3/2 Q1 - 1/2 Q0
P1 = 3/2 Q2 - 1/2 Q3
If this is a degree-elevated cubic, then both equations will give the same answer for P1. Since it's likely not, your best bet is to average them. So,
P1 = -1/4 Q0 + 3/4 Q1 + 3/4 Q2 - 1/4 Q3
To translate to your terms:
controlX = -0.25*startX + .75*control1X + .75*control2X -0.25*endX
Y is computed similarly - the dimensions are independent, so this works for 3d (or n-d).
This will be an approximation. If you need a better approximation, one way to get it is by subdividing the initial cubic using the deCastlejau algorithm, and then degree-reduce each segment. If you need better continuity, there are other approximation methods that are less quick and dirty.
The cubic can have loops and cusps, which quadratic cannot have. This means that there are not simple solutions nearly never. If cubic is already a quadratic, then the simple solution exists. Normally you have to divide cubic to parts that are quadratics. And you have to decide what are the critical points for subdividing.
http://fontforge.org/bezier.html#ps2ttf says:
"Other sources I have read on the net suggest checking the cubic spline for points of inflection (which quadratic splines cannot have) and forcing breaks there. To my eye this actually makes the result worse, it uses more points and the approximation does not look as close as it does when ignoring the points of inflection. So I ignore them."
This is true, the inflection points (second derivatives of cubic) are not enough. But if you take into account also local extremes (min, max) which are the first derivatives of cubic function, and force breaks on those all, then the sub curves are all quadratic and can be presented by quadratics.
I tested the below functions, they work as expected (find all critical points of cubic and divides the cubic to down-elevated cubics). When those sub curves are drawn, the curve is exactly the same as original cubic, but for some reason, when sub curves are drawn as quadratics, the result is nearly right, but not exactly.
So this answer is not for strict help for the problem, but those functions provide a starting point for cubic to quadratic conversion.
To find both local extremes and inflection points, the following get_t_values_of_critical_points() should provide them. The
function compare_num(a,b) {
if (a < b) return -1;
if (a > b) return 1;
return 0;
}
function find_inflection_points(p1x,p1y,p2x,p2y,p3x,p3y,p4x,p4y)
{
var ax = -p1x + 3*p2x - 3*p3x + p4x;
var bx = 3*p1x - 6*p2x + 3*p3x;
var cx = -3*p1x + 3*p2x;
var ay = -p1y + 3*p2y - 3*p3y + p4y;
var by = 3*p1y - 6*p2y + 3*p3y;
var cy = -3*p1y + 3*p2y;
var a = 3*(ay*bx-ax*by);
var b = 3*(ay*cx-ax*cy);
var c = by*cx-bx*cy;
var r2 = b*b - 4*a*c;
var firstIfp = 0;
var secondIfp = 0;
if (r2>=0 && a!==0)
{
var r = Math.sqrt(r2);
firstIfp = (-b + r) / (2*a);
secondIfp = (-b - r) / (2*a);
if ((firstIfp>0 && firstIfp<1) && (secondIfp>0 && secondIfp<1))
{
if (firstIfp>secondIfp)
{
var tmp = firstIfp;
firstIfp = secondIfp;
secondIfp = tmp;
}
if (secondIfp-firstIfp >0.00001)
return [firstIfp, secondIfp];
else return [firstIfp];
}
else if (firstIfp>0 && firstIfp<1)
return [firstIfp];
else if (secondIfp>0 && secondIfp<1)
{
firstIfp = secondIfp;
return [firstIfp];
}
return [];
}
else return [];
}
function get_t_values_of_critical_points(p1x, p1y, c1x, c1y, c2x, c2y, p2x, p2y) {
var a = (c2x - 2 * c1x + p1x) - (p2x - 2 * c2x + c1x),
b = 2 * (c1x - p1x) - 2 * (c2x - c1x),
c = p1x - c1x,
t1 = (-b + Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a,
t2 = (-b - Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a,
tvalues=[];
Math.abs(t1) > "1e12" && (t1 = 0.5);
Math.abs(t2) > "1e12" && (t2 = 0.5);
if (t1 >= 0 && t1 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t1)==-1) tvalues.push(t1)
if (t2 >= 0 && t2 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t2)==-1) tvalues.push(t2);
a = (c2y - 2 * c1y + p1y) - (p2y - 2 * c2y + c1y);
b = 2 * (c1y - p1y) - 2 * (c2y - c1y);
c = p1y - c1y;
t1 = (-b + Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a;
t2 = (-b - Math.sqrt(b * b - 4 * a * c)) / 2 / a;
Math.abs(t1) > "1e12" && (t1 = 0.5);
Math.abs(t2) > "1e12" && (t2 = 0.5);
if (t1 >= 0 && t1 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t1)==-1) tvalues.push(t1);
if (t2 >= 0 && t2 <= 1 && tvalues.indexOf(t2)==-1) tvalues.push(t2);
var inflectionpoints = find_inflection_points(p1x, p1y, c1x, c1y, c2x, c2y, p2x, p2y);
if (inflectionpoints[0]) tvalues.push(inflectionpoints[0]);
if (inflectionpoints[1]) tvalues.push(inflectionpoints[1]);
tvalues.sort(compare_num);
return tvalues;
};
And when you have those critical t values (which are from range 0-1), you can divide the cubic to parts:
function CPoint()
{
var arg = arguments;
if (arg.length==1)
{
this.X = arg[0].X;
this.Y = arg[0].Y;
}
else if (arg.length==2)
{
this.X = arg[0];
this.Y = arg[1];
}
}
function subdivide_cubic_to_cubics()
{
var arg = arguments;
if (arg.length!=9) return [];
var m_p1 = {X:arg[0], Y:arg[1]};
var m_p2 = {X:arg[2], Y:arg[3]};
var m_p3 = {X:arg[4], Y:arg[5]};
var m_p4 = {X:arg[6], Y:arg[7]};
var t = arg[8];
var p1p = new CPoint(m_p1.X + (m_p2.X - m_p1.X) * t,
m_p1.Y + (m_p2.Y - m_p1.Y) * t);
var p2p = new CPoint(m_p2.X + (m_p3.X - m_p2.X) * t,
m_p2.Y + (m_p3.Y - m_p2.Y) * t);
var p3p = new CPoint(m_p3.X + (m_p4.X - m_p3.X) * t,
m_p3.Y + (m_p4.Y - m_p3.Y) * t);
var p1d = new CPoint(p1p.X + (p2p.X - p1p.X) * t,
p1p.Y + (p2p.Y - p1p.Y) * t);
var p2d = new CPoint(p2p.X + (p3p.X - p2p.X) * t,
p2p.Y + (p3p.Y - p2p.Y) * t);
var p1t = new CPoint(p1d.X + (p2d.X - p1d.X) * t,
p1d.Y + (p2d.Y - p1d.Y) * t);
return [[m_p1.X, m_p1.Y, p1p.X, p1p.Y, p1d.X, p1d.Y, p1t.X, p1t.Y],
[p1t.X, p1t.Y, p2d.X, p2d.Y, p3p.X, p3p.Y, m_p4.X, m_p4.Y]];
}
subdivide_cubic_to_cubics() in above code divides an original cubic curve to two parts by the value t. Because get_t_values_of_critical_points() returns t values as an array sorted by t value, you can easily traverse all t values and get the corresponding sub curve. When you have those divided curves, you have to divide the 2nd sub curve by the next t value.
When all splitting is proceeded, you have the control points of all sub curves. Now there are left only the cubic control point conversion to quadratic. Because all sub curves are now down-elevated cubics, the corresponding quadratic control points are easy to calculate. The first and last of quadratic control points are the same as cubic's (sub curve) first and last control point and the middle one is found in the point, where lines P1-P2 and P4-P3 crosses.
Conventions/terminology
Cubic defined by: P1/2 - anchor points, C1/C2 control points
|x| is the euclidean norm of x
mid-point approx of cubic: a quad that shares the same anchors with the cubic and has the control point at C = (3·C2 - P2 + 3·C1 - P1)/4
Algorithm
pick an absolute precision (prec)
Compute the Tdiv as the root of (cubic) equation sqrt(3)/18 · |P2 - 3·C2 + 3·C1 - P1|/2 · Tdiv ^ 3 = prec
if Tdiv < 0.5 divide the cubic at Tdiv. First segment [0..Tdiv] can be approximated with by a quadratic, with a defect less than prec, by the mid-point approximation. Repeat from step 2 with the second resulted segment (corresponding to 1-Tdiv)
0.5<=Tdiv<1 - simply divide the cubic in two. The two halves can be approximated by the mid-point approximation
Tdiv>=1 - the entire cubic can be approximated by the mid-point approximation
The "magic formula" at step 2 is demonstrated (with interactive examples) on this page.
Another derivation of tfinniga's answer:
First see Wikipedia Bezier curve
for the formulas for quadratic and cubic Bezier curves (also nice animations):
Q(t) = (1-t)^2 P0 + 2 (1-t) t Q + t^2 P3
P(t) + (1-t)^3 P0 + 3 (1-t)^2 t P1 + 3 (1-t) t^2 P2 + t^3 P3
Require these to match at the middle, t = 1/2:
(P0 + 2 Q + P3) / 4 = (P0 + 3 P1 + 3 P2 + P3) / 8
=> Q = P1 + P2 - (P0 + P1 + P2 + P3) / 4
(Q written like this has a geometric interpretation:
Pmid = middle of P0 P1 P2 P3
P12mid = midway between P1 and P2
draw a line from Pmid to P12mid, and that far again: you're at Q.
Hope this makes sense -- draw a couple of examples.)
In general, you'll have to use multiple quadratic curves - many cases of cubic curves can't be even vaguely approximated with a single quadratic curve.
There is a good article discussing the problem, and a number of ways to solve it, at http://www.timotheegroleau.com/Flash/articles/cubic_bezier_in_flash.htm (including interactive demonstrations).
I should note that Adrian's solution is great for single cubics, but when the cubics are segments of a smooth cubic spline, then using his midpoint approximation method causes slope continuity at the nodes of the segments to be lost. So the method described at http://fontforge.org/bezier.html#ps2ttf is much better if you are working with font glyphs or for any other reason you want to retain the smoothness of the curve (which is most probably the case).
Even though this is an old question, many people like me will see it in search results, so I'm posting this here.
I would probably draw a series of curves instead of trying to draw one curve using a different alg. Sort of like drawing two half circles to make up a whole circle.
Try looking for opensource Postcript font to Truetype font converters. I'm sure they have it. Postscript uses cubic bezier curves, whereas Truetype uses quadratic bezier curves. Good luck.