JTS : distance between two geometries bypassing another one in the middle - geometry

Let's say that I want to calculate the distance between two geometries with JTS, but there is another one in the middle that I can't go across (as if it was a wall). It could look like this :
I wonder how I could calculate that.
In this case, these shapes geom1 and geom2 are 38.45 meters away, as I calculate it straight away. But if I don't want go across that line, I should surround it by the Northern sides, and distance would probably be more than 70 meters away.
We can think that we could have a line a polygon or whatever in the middle.
I wonder if there is any built in function in JTS, or some other thing I could you. I guess if there is anything out there, I should check for some other workaround, as trying to solve complex routing problems is beyond my knowledge.
This is the straight away piece of code using JTS for the distance, which would not still take into account the Geometry in the middle.
import org.apache.log4j.Logger;
import com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.Geometry;
import com.vividsolutions.jts.io.ParseException;
import com.vividsolutions.jts.io.WKTReader;
public class distanceTest {
private final static Logger logger = Logger.getLogger("distanceTest");
public static void main(String [] args) {
//Projection : EPSG:32631
// We build one of the geometries on one side
String sGeom1="POLYGON ((299621.3240601513 5721036.003245114, 299600.94820609683 5721085.042327096, 299587.7719688322 5721052.9152064435, 299621.3240601513 5721036.003245114))";
Geometry geom1=distanceTest.buildGeometry(sGeom1);
// We build the geometry on the other side
String sGeom2=
"POLYGON ((299668.20990794065 5721092.766132105, 299647.3623194871 5721073.557249224, 299682.8494029705 5721049.148841454, 299668.20990794065 5721092.766132105))";
Geometry geom2=distanceTest.buildGeometry(sGeom2);
// There is a geometry in the middle, as if it was a wall
String split=
"LINESTRING (299633.6804935104 5721103.780167559, 299668.99872434285 5720999.981241705, 299608.8457218057 5721096.601805294)";
Geometry splitGeom=distanceTest.buildGeometry(split);
// We calculate the distance not taking care of the wall in the middle
double distance = geom1.distance(geom2);
logger.error("Distance : " + distance);
}
public static Geometry buildGeometry(final String areaWKT) {
final WKTReader fromText = new WKTReader();
Geometry area;
try {
area = fromText.read(areaWKT);
}
catch (final ParseException e) {
area = null;
}
return area;
}
}

This works for SQL, I hope you have the same or similar methods at your disposal.
In theory, in this instance you could create a ConvexHull containing the two geometries AND your "unpassable" geometry.
Geometry convexHull = sGeom1.STUnion(sGeom2).STUnion(split).STConvexHull();
Next, extract the border of the ConvexHull to a linestring (use STGeometry(1) - I think).
Geometry convexHullBorder = convexHull.STGeometry(1);
EDIT: Actually, with Geometry you can use STExteriorRing().
Geometry convexHullBorder = convexHull.STExteriorRing();
Lastly, pick one of your geometries, and for each shared point with the border of the ConvexHull, walk the border from that point until you reach the first point that is shared with the other geometry, adding the distance between the current and previous point at each point reached. If the second point you hit belongs to the same geometry as you are walking from, exit the loop and move on to the next to reduce time. Repeat for the second geometry.
When you've done this for all possibilities, you can simply take the minimum value (there will be only two - Geom1 to Geom2 and Geom2 to Geom1) and there is your answer.
Of course, there are plenty of scenarios in which this is too simple, but if all scenarios simply have one "wall" in them, it will work.
Some ideas of where it will not work:
The "wall" is a polygon, fully enveloping both geometries - but then how would you ever get there anyway?
There are multiple "walls" which do not intersect each other (gaps between them) - this method will ignore those passes in between "walls". If however multiple "walls" intersect, creating essentially one larger "wall" the theory will still work.
Hope that makes sense?
EDIT: Actually, upon further reflection there are other scenarios where the ConvexHull approach will not work, for instance the shape of your polygon could cause the ConvexHull to not produce the shortest path between geometries and your "walls". This will not get you 100% accuracy.

Related

Bounding Box intersection

To find elements that are intersecting a geometry I am using the example post by Jeremy in his blog http://thebuildingcoder.typepad.com/blog/2010/12/find-intersecting-elements.html. But the bounding box is always paralell to the axis X, Y and Z and this may cause a problem, like return elements that are not really clashing, because sometimes the bounding box it's not always coincident with the geometry because the family instance is rotated. Besides that, there is the problem that the bounding box will consider the geometry of the symbol and not the instance, and will consider the flipped geometry too, it means that the bounding box is bigger than I am looking for. Is there a way to get the real geometry that are in the currently view ? How can I solve this problem ?
There are many way to address this. Generally, when performing clash detection, you will always run a super fast pre-processing step first to determine candidate elements, and then narrow down the search step by step more precisely in following steps. In this case, you can consider the bounding box intersection the first step, and then perform post-processing afterwards to narrow down the result to your exact goal.
One important question is: does the bounding box really give you all the elements you need, plus more? Are you sure there are none missing?
Once that is settled, all you need to do is add post-processing steps applying the detailed considerations that you care about.
A simple one might be: are all the target element geometry vertices contained in the target volume?
A more complex one might involve retrieving the full solid of the target element and the target volume and performing a Boolean intersection between them to determine completely and exactly whether they intersect, are disjunct, or contained in each other.
Many others are conceivable.
I am using another strategy that is acess the geometry of the instance to verify if the face of the family instace are clashing with a closer conduit.
class FindIntersection
{
public Conduit ConduitRun { get; set; }
public FamilyInstance Jbox { get; set; }
public List<Conduit> GetListOfConduits = new List<Conduit>();
public FindIntersection(FamilyInstance jbox, UIDocument uiDoc)
{
XYZ jboxPoint = (jbox.Location as LocationPoint).Point;
FilteredElementCollector filteredCloserConduits = new FilteredElementCollector(uiDoc.Document);
List<Element> listOfCloserConduit = filteredCloserConduits.OfClass(typeof(Conduit)).ToList().Where(x =>
((x as Conduit).Location as LocationCurve).Curve.GetEndPoint(0).DistanceTo(jboxPoint) < 30 ||
((x as Conduit).Location as LocationCurve).Curve.GetEndPoint(1).DistanceTo(jboxPoint) < 30).ToList();
//getting the location of the box and all conduit around.
Options opt = new Options();
opt.View = uiDoc.ActiveView;
GeometryElement geoEle = jbox.get_Geometry(opt);
//getting the geometry of the element to acess the geometry of the instance.
foreach (GeometryObject geomObje1 in geoEle)
{
GeometryElement geoInstance = (geomObje1 as GeometryInstance).GetInstanceGeometry();
//the geometry of the family instance can be acess by this method that returns a GeometryElement type.
//so we must get the GeometryObject again to acess the Face of the family instance.
if (geoInstance != null)
{
foreach (GeometryObject geomObje2 in geoInstance)
{
Solid geoSolid = geomObje2 as Solid;
if (geoSolid != null)
{
foreach (Face face in geoSolid.Faces)
{
foreach (Element cond in listOfCloserConduit)
{
Conduit con = cond as Conduit;
Curve conCurve = (con.Location as LocationCurve).Curve;
SetComparisonResult set = face.Intersect(conCurve);
if (set.ToString() == "Overlap")
{
//getting the conduit the intersect the box.
GetListOfConduits.Add(con);
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Can you please provide a complete minimal reproducible case so we can understand the exact context and analyse what can be done? Maybe you could include one axis-aligned junction box and one that is not, so we can see how ell versus how badly your existing algorithm performs. Thank you!
I summarised this discussion and the results to date in a blog post on filtering for intersecting elements and conduits intersecting a junction box.

How to find number of Reference Planes passing through a selected wall.

I need to find out the number of Reference planes and their names which are passing through a selected wall. I can get all the reference planes for a particular document but how shall I do this for a particular wall.
You help would be appreciated!
Thanks.
If the ElementIntersectFilter doesn't work for your needs, you'll have to extract the geometry of the wall and reference plane and work with those directly.
Intersecting the reference planes with the wall solids can work, but there's a simpler answer that will work, if I understand your question correctly. I'm assuming you only want the walls where the green line of the ref plane intersects, rather than treating the reference plane object as an infinite geometric plane. In the screenshot below, I assume you want to find the checkmarks, but not the red X's. I'm also assuming you're looking at this as a plan exercise, and not specifically setting the vertical extents of the reference plane (this is just based on how I've seen most people use Revit). The following function takes as inputs a single wall and a list of ref planes (you mentioned you already have the collection of all ref planes) and will return a list of ref planes which intersect the wall.
public static List<ReferencePlane> getRefPlanesIntersectingWall( Wall wal, List<ReferencePlane> refPlanesIn)
{
//simplify this to a 2D problem, using the location curve of the wall
List<ReferencePlane> refPlanesOut = new List<ReferencePlane>();
LocationCurve wallLocation = wal.Location as LocationCurve;
Curve wallCurve = wallLocation.Curve;
Double wallZ = wallLocation.Curve.GetEndPoint(0).Z;
foreach (ReferencePlane rp in refPlanesIn)
{
XYZ startPt = new XYZ(rp.BubbleEnd.X, rp.BubbleEnd.Y, wallZ);
XYZ endPt = new XYZ(rp.FreeEnd.X, rp.FreeEnd.Y, wallZ);
Line rpLine = Line.CreateBound(startPt, endPt);
SetComparisonResult test = wallCurve.Intersect(rpLine);
if (test == SetComparisonResult.Overlap ||
test == SetComparisonResult.Subset ||
test == SetComparisonResult.Superset ||
test == SetComparisonResult.Equal )
{
refPlanesOut.Add(rp);
}
}
return refPlanesOut;
}
I would start by trying the built-in ElementIntersectFilter. The documentation has a nice example, replace "FamilyInstance" with "referencePlane" and that may do it.
http://www.revitapidocs.com/2017/19276b94-fa39-64bb-bfb8-c16967c83485.htm
If that doesn't work, you'll need to extract the solid of the wall and intersect with the reference plane.

Scaling unit cube in Java3d Manually

I'm working on something in Java3D and I know TransformGroups are how you would usually apply scaling...
However, I am trying to create a way of defining cuboids based on a scaling vector.
So I have a unit cube 1,1,1 -> -1,-1,-1 and I want to manually apply a scaling transformation.
private static void scaleCoordinates(IndexedQuadArray indexedQuadArray, Vector3d scaleVector) {
//Create scalar transform
Transform3D scalarTransform = new Transform3D();
scalarTransform.setScale(scaleVector);
// retrieve the vertex coordinates
GeometryInfo indexedQuadArrayGeometryInfo = new GeometryInfo(indexedQuadArray);
Point3f coordinatesToScaleArray [] = indexedQuadArrayGeometryInfo.getCoordinates();
// scale each 3d coordinate
for(Point3f coordinate: coordinatesToScaleArray){
scalarTransform.transform(coordinate);
}
// update the indexed quad array with scaled-coordinates.
indexedQuadArray.setCoordinates(0, coordinatesToScaleArray);
}
Now it works when the scaling is positive whole numbers, but if I scale by 0.5 or a negative number the vertices get messed up.
Anyone any idea what's wrong? I should be able to scale by less than 1 I think, maybe something is happinening with Transform3D.transform(Point3f) that I'm not aware of.
Thanks a lot for reading!
I wouldn't expect negative numbers to work. The scaling transformation is really just a multiplcation when you think about it. Thus scaling the point (1,1,1) with the vector (.5,.6,.7) should give you the new point (.5,.6,.7)
If you "scale" by a negative number, you'd be turning your cube inside out, and all sorts of normals and edges would be wrong.
Can you provide a list of the vertices of in your quadArray and the scaleVector you are using?

Maintain a list of points around a center point, preserving CCW order

I have the following class:
public class Vertex() {
private double xCoord;
private double yCoord;
private ArrayList<Vertex> neighborList();
}
And I want to support adding/removing vertices to the neighborList such that the points are listed in CCW order around this vertex (which point is first in the list doesn't matter). If points are collinear, nearer points to this should be first. I've tried several methods but so far have always been able to find a counter example that doesn't work for the given method.
Does anyone have a good idea of how to do this in a simple and efficient manner?
Express the point coordinates in the polar form
t = atan2(Y-Yo, X-Xo)
r = sqrt((X-Xo)^2 + (Y-Yo)^2)
and use lexicographical ordering on angle then radius.

Trouble Naming Constants: Two Right-Angled Triangles

i'm trying to come up with appropriate constant names for two right-angled triangles that can be rotated.
the image above shows the two different versions of a right-angled triangle. the right angle of the orange triangle is in the bottom-right while the right angle of the blue triangle is in the bottom-left.
from that, let's assume i will name each constant as:
public static const RIGHT_ANGLE_BOTTOM_RIGHT:String = "rightAngleBottomRight";
public static const RIGHT_ANGLE_BOTTOM_LEFT:String = "rightAngleBottomLeft";
besides those constant names being quite long and not very descriptive, these triangles can be rotated. therefore, if the orange triangle (RIGHT_ANGLE_BOTTOM_RIGHT) is rotated -90ยบ, its name is now misleading (and conflicting) since its right angle is now in the bottom left of the triangle shape.
so i'm searching for constant names for these rotatable, right-angled triangles which are clear and distinguishing (and ideally short). currently, my "best" is simply calling them type 1 and type 2. while those names are unmistakably distinguishing, it certainly isn't at all clear of their shape, especially since they can be rotated.
package
{
public final class TriangleStyle
{
public static const ISOSCELES:String = "isosceles";
public static const RIGHT_Type1:String = "right1";
public static const RIGHT_Type2:String = "right2";
}
}
any thoughts?
Perhaps HOA and HAO -- I'll leave the derivation to you -- and note that these names are invariant under rotation.

Resources