For a customizable laser-cut drawers project I would like to be able to create the connection between any two intersecting perpendicular "2D" objects (with width) programmatically. For this I need to:
load and save 2D objects in some standard format.
extrude 2D object, and make the standard manipulations on 2D objects (specifically subtraction of objects.)
intersect 2 object, and be able to determine the "line" of intersection.
Which library/tool you would suggest for that? Can you estimate how difficult it would be to master it to do the above tasks?
Thanks,
Ronen
I'm biased ( PythonOCC dev ), but I'd say OpenCasCade would best fit your needs. Its comes wit Step and Iges importers out of the box ( more formats are supported commercially ), where you'd have to parse and reconstruct the geometry from a file with Boost and CGAL. Finally, neither of those packages deal with nurbs / CAD geometry ( BRep, boundary representation ) but merely triangles ( polygon soup ). So, OCC fits the scope best IMHO.
I have experience with OPENCASCADE and CGAL . Boost Geometry is very limited / simple and does not provider support for topological structures , solids , brep etc. The purpose has been quite different from the rest. Certainly, its quality is higher than any of the other two.
Opencascade among the three is least preferable choice in terms of quality. For example, everything is defined in global namespace, there are multiple macro definitions on header files, and has bloated classes. It has quite some support for various algorithms and constructs but only up to some point; for the rest you have to pay. These are somehow understandable, since it has been developed as an in-house library not for public access, and therefore they did not care about such things. The community is quite small, therefore you will have to go searching through the documentation a lot and experiment on how to do things. Usually, there are more than one way to work, and it is common to write many adaptors in your code to interface between different algorithms.
On the other hand CGAL is quite the opposite, has support for almost anything you can imagine, it is quite modern, and there is dedicated community along with very good documentation and examples for most use cases. There are different classes and algorithms depending on trade-off of the problem at hand. There is support for different UI (WIN/QT) and it interfaces well with STL / BOOST containers structures. Comparing to opencascade that does not even have a proper STL compatible iterator class, that is a significant difference.
Therefore, I would strongly suggest to work with CGAL.
In case you are forced to work with OPENCASCADE and want to use CGAL at the same time you will probably have to include header files such that Handle macro is undefed e.g.
#include <TopoDS_Shape.h>
#undef Handle
#include <CGAL/Alpha_shape_3.h>
#define Handle(ClassName) Handle_##ClassName
Related
I'm new to glTF and I would have a very basic, and maybe naive, question. Sorry, and thanks for your understanding and your help.
We have a C++ application where we handle geometry primitive entities, like boxes, cones, cylinders, and so forth.
For visualizing the geometry entities we currently use Coin3D, which have corresponding geometry shapes: Box, Cone, ...
We now would like to add a glTF exporter too, and I have started to explore the glTF specs.
I must say, in the official documentation, and on the web, I could not find any support in glTF for basic geometry shapes.
Therefore, my questions are:
is that true, that glTF has no notion of, let's say, a Box, or a Cone? Or did I missed something obvious?
If the answer to 1) is "NO", are there tested/supported/suggested implementations for basic shapes? I have only found some "example" shapes, like the Box here; but I could not find any collection of implementations of basic shapes. Again, did I miss something?
Are there any best practices, or documentation, on how to implement basic geometry shapes in glTF?
The short answer is you're correct, glTF does not currently store basic geometric shapes directly as a box, cone, cylinder, etc. The format is intended to be a runtime delivery format, not an asset interchange format.
As such, the internal data structures within glTF are designed to mimic the raw data that would typically be fed into a GPU using a graphics API such as OpenGL, WebGL, etc. Entire blocks of glTF data can often be pulled off a disk or network and handed over directly to a graphics API for rendering, with minimal pre-processing.
This means that all of your basic shapes must arrive as the GPU expects to find them: triangulated. Even a simple box is made up of twelve triangles, and because the sides don't share normal vectors, the normal "vertex attributes" are different, hence triangles from different sides of the box don't share vertices (again, because the GPU wouldn't accept that as a raw input). The benefit is that a WebGL client doesn't have to think very hard about what to do when it receives a glTF, it can just start cramming data into the graphics pipeline to get things moving.
For a broader overview, the ever-popular glTF - What the Duck diagram is widely considered an excellent starting point, and the glTF Tutorials are a good follow-up to that.
Can anyone help me find resources to study about how to implement transformation functions (Translation, rotation & scaling) using Vulkan API on windows platform?
There are very limited sources on Vulkan as far as I know and I couldn't find a single material about transformations in Vulkan.
If You are looking for a source code, Vulkan Cookbook has code samples implementing each of these transformations (translation, rotation and scaling).
If You are looking for an explanation why they are implemented in such a way, You can look for any resources describing these transformations. Translation, rotation and scaling behave exactly the same, no matter what API You are using. This is pure linear algebra. There are differences in projection matrices due to different coordinate systems being used (Vulkan has depth in a [0; 1] range while OpenGL in a [-1; 1] range; and framebuffer space is inverted along Y axis). But the same methodologies apply when You are constructing them by Yourself, You just need to take into account these different coord systems.
The best resource I have encountered describing why matrices are created in such a way, was Frank D. Luna's Introduction to 3D Game Programming with DirectX.
If you're looking for something like the equivalent of glTranslatef, glScalef, and glRotatef, you're out of luck. Nothing like that exists in Vulkan (or in modern OpenGL, for that matter). With modern rendering API's you manage transforms (view, model, projection) on the CPU side using your own preferred library (I use and recommend GLM). Transforms are passed to the shaders using uniform blocks, typically as mat4 values where they can then be used to transform input vertices.
If you are asking us how to implement these by yourself, you have to study some linear algebra to do this. Previous answers answered this.
If not, then I suggest using GLM. It is a library originally written for OpenGL, so you have to be careful while using it. Axes are flipped, keep that in mind.
I am writing a program that will output 3D model files based on simple geometric shapes (e. g. rectangular prisms & cylinders) with known coordinates in 3-dimensional space. As an example, imagine creating a 3D model of stonehenge. this question suggests that OBJ files are the easiest to generate, but I'm struggling to find a good tutorial or easy-to-use library for doing so.
Can anyone either
(1) describe step-by-step how to create a simple file OR
(2) point me to a tutorial that describes how to do so
Notes:
* Using a GUI-based program to draw such files is not an option for me
* I have no prior experience with 3D modeling
* Other formats such as WRL or DAE would work for me as well
EDIT:
I do not need to use textures, just combinations of simple geometric shapes positioned in 3D space.
I strongly recommend to use some ASCII exchange format there are many out there I usually use these:
*.x DirectX object (it is a C++ source code)
this one is easiest to implement !!! But there are not many tools that can handle them. If you do not want to spend too much time coding then this is the right choice. Just copy the templates (at the start) from any *.x file to get started.
here some specs
*.iges common and importable on most CAD/CAM platform (Catia included)
this one is a bit complicated but for export purposes it is not that bad. It supports Volume operation like +,-,&,^ which are VERY HARD to implement properly but you do not have to use them :)
*.dxf AutoCAD exchange format
this one is even more complicated then IGES. I do not recommend to use it
*.ac AC3D
I first saw this one in flight gear.
here some specs
at first look it is quite easy but the sub-object implementation is really tricky. Unless you use it you should be fine.
This approach is easily verifiable in note pad or by loading to some 3D model viewer. Chose one that is most suitable for your needs and code save/load function to your Apps internal model class/struct. This way you will be compatible with other software and eliminate incompatibility problems which are native to creating 'almost known' binary formats like 3ds,...
In your case I would use IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification)
For export you do not need to implement all just few basic shapes so it would not be too difficult. I code importers which are much much more complicated. Mine IGES loader class is about 30KB of C++ source code look here for more info
You did not provide any info about your 3D mesh model structure and capabilities
like what primitives you use, are your object simple or in skeleton hierarchy, are you using textures, and more ... so it is impossible to answer
Anyway export often looks like this:
create header and structure of target file format
if the format has any directory structure fill it and write it (IGES)
for sub-objects do not forget to add transformation matrices ...
write the chunks you need (points list, faces list, normals, ...)
With ASCII formats you can do this inside String variable so you can easily insert into or modify. Do all thing in memory and write the whole thing to file at the end which is fast and also add capability to work with memory instead of files. This is handy if you want to pack many files to single package file like *.pak or send/receive files through IPC or LAN ...
[Edit1] more about IGES
fileformat specs
I learned IGES from this pdf ... Have no clue where from I got it but this was first valid link I found in google today. I am sure there is some non registration link out there too. It is about 13.7 MB and original name IGES5-3_forDownload.pdf.
win32 viewer
this is free IGES viewer. I do not like the interface and handling but it works. It is necessary to have functional viewer for testing yours ...
examples
here are many tutorial files for many entities there are 3 sub-links (igs,peek,gif) where you can see example file in more ways for better understanding.
exporting to IGES
you did not provide any info about your 3D mesh internal structure so I can not help with export. There are many ways to export the same way so pick one that is closest to your App 3D mesh representation. For example you can use:
point cloud
rotation surfaces
rectangle (QUAD) surfaces
border lines representation (non solid)
trim surface and many more ...
I am scouring the web for tools, programs, utilities, supporting libraries and code primitives that help optimize SVGs for simplicity, space and elegance recently, to link to from the Kilobyte SVG Challenge's tools section, but have yet to find good primitives focusing on how to reduce the number of coordinates of a path, without losing much – or ideally any – precision.
Take this marker-augmented version of the Coca Cola logo, for instance (~7kb, essentially all path data) – which very clearly shows lots of promise for reducing its number of bèziers, given some tooling to do the math to come up with a path using fewer nodes, while producing essentially the same curve.
For the much simpler problem of polygons and polylines (read "all-line paths"), you can use the Douglas–Peucker or Visvalingam’s algorithm (see Mike Bostock's excellent d3 implementation of the latter) to simply remove the coordinates least affecting the path's shape until you're happy with a size-to-precision fit suiting your needs.
I am looking for the equivalent that notices where larger curve (or even arc) segments could replace lots of these redundant mid-curve coordinate stops, without lots of manual tweaking. I think some vector graphics packages (Adobe Illustrator, maybe even Inkscape?) may offer features like these (tips on how to access them welcome!) - though I would love to find scriptable tools we can recommend and offer HOWTOs of how to use from the command line, or even web apps, that squeeze out excess path filler material for people.
For reference, the Kilobyte SVG Challenge is a for-fun SVG education and advocacy stunt I have set up, recently. All non-question-topic discussion about it are best held there, and/or on its github repository linked above. Stay awesome! :)
You can use Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm to simplify polylines or polygons path.
I am looking for an algorithm or library (better) to break down a polygon into triangles. I will be using these triangles in a Direct3D application. What are the best available options?
Here is what I have found so far:
Ben Discoe's notes
FIST: Fast Industrial-Strength Triangulation of Polygons
I know that CGAL provides triangulation but am not sure if it supports holes.
I would really appreciate some opinions from people with prior experience in this area.
Edit: This is a 2D polygon.
To give you some more choices of libraries out there:
Polyboolean. I never tried this one, but it looks promising: http://www.complex-a5.ru/polyboolean/index.html
General Polygon Clipper. This one works very well in practice and does triangulation as well as clipping and holes holes: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/alan/software/
My personal recommendation: Use the tesselation from the GLU (OpenGL Utility Library). The code is rock solid, faster than GPC and generates less triangles. You don't need an initialized OpenGL-Handle or anything like this to use the lib.
If you don't like the idea to include OpenGL system libs in a DirectX application there is a solution as well: Just download the SGI OpenGL reference implementation code and lift the triangulator from it. It just uses the OpenGL-Typedef names and a hand full of enums. That's it. You can extract the code and make a stand alone lib in an hour or two.
In general my advice would be to use something that alreay works and don't start to write your own triangulation.
It is tempting to roll your own if you have read about the ear-clipping or sweep-line algorithm, but fact is that computational geometry algorithms are incredible hard to write in a way that they work stable, never crash and always return a meaningful result. Numerical roundoff errors will accumulate and kill you in the end.
I wrote a triangulation algorithm in C for the company I work with. Getting the core algorithm working took two days. Getting it working with all kinds of degenerated inputs took another two years (I wasn't working fulltime on it, but trust me - I spent more time on it than I should have).
Jonathan Shewchuk's Triangle library is phenomenal; I've used it for automating triangulation in the past. You can ask it to attempt to avoid small/narrow triangles, etc., so you come up with "good" triangulations instead of just any triangulation.
CGAL has the tool you need:
Constrained Triangulations
You can simply provide boundaries of your polygon (incuding the boundaries of the holes) as constraints (the best would be that you insert all vertices, and then specify the constraints as pairs of Vertex_handles).
You can then tag the triangles of the triangulation by any traversal algorithm: start with a triangle incident to the infinite vertex and tag it as being outside, and each time you cross a constraint, switch to the opposite tag (inside if you were previously tagging the triangles as outsider, outside if you were tagging triangles as insider before).
I have found the poly2tri library to be exactly what I needed for triangulation. It produces a much cleaner mesh than other libraries I've tried (including libtess), and it does support holes as well. It's been converted to a bunch of languages. The license is New BSD, so you can use it in any project.
Poly2tri library on Google Code
try libtess2
https://code.google.com/p/libtess2/downloads/list
based on the original SGI GLU tesselator (with liberal licensing). Solves some memory management issues around lots of small mallocs.
You can add the holes relatively easily yourself. Basically triangulate to the convex hull of the input points, as per CGAL, and then delete any triangle whose incentre lies inside any of the hole polygons (or outside any of the external boundaries). When dealing with lots of holes in a large dataset, masking techniques may be used to significantly speed this process up.
edit: A common extension to this technique is to weed weak triangles on the hull, where the longest edge or smallest internal angle exceeds a given value. This will form a better concave hull.
I have implemented a 3D polygon triangulator in C# using the ear clipping method. It is easy to use, supports holes, is numerically robust, and supports aribtrary (not self-intersecting) convex/non-convex polygons.
This is a common problem in finite element analysis. It's called "automatic mesh generation". Google found this site with links to commercial and open source software. They usually presume some kind of CAD representation of the geometry to start.
Another option (with a very flexible license) is to port the algorithm from VTK:
vtkDelaunay2D
This algorithm works fairly well. Using it directly is possible, but requires links to VTK, which may have more overhead than you want (although it has many other nice features, as well).
It supports constraints (holes/boundaries/etc), as well as triangulating a surface that isn't necessarily in the XY plane. It also supports some features I haven't seen elsewhere (see the notes on Alpha values).