I have an interesting problem that I've been trying to solve for a while. There is no "right" solution to this, as there is no strict criteria for success. What I want to accomplish is a smooth transition between two simple polygons, from polygon A to polygon B. Polygon A is completely contained within polygon B.
My criteria for this transition are:
The transition is continuous in time and space
The area that is being "filled" from polygon A into polygon B should be filled in as if there was a liquid in A that was pouring out into the shape of B
It is important that this animation can be calculated either on the fly, or be defined by a set of parameters that require little space, say less than a few Kb.
Cheating is perfectly fine, any way to solve this so that it looks good is a possible solution.
Solutions I've considered, and mostly ruled out:
Pairing up vertices in A and B and simply interpolate. Will not look good and does not work in the case of concave polygons.
Dividing the area B-A into convex polygons, perhaps a Voronoi diagram, and calculate the discrete states of the polygon by doing a BFS on the smaller convex polygons. Then I interpolate between the discrete states. Note: If polygon B-A is convex, the transition is fairly trivial. I didn't go with this solution because dividing B-A into equally sized small convex polygons was surprisingly difficult
Simulation: Subdivide polygon A. Move each vertex along the polygon line normal (outwards) in discrete but small steps. For each step, check if vertex is still inside B. If not, then move back to previous position. Repeat until A equals B. I don't like this solution because the check to see whether a vertex is inside a polygon is slow.
Does anybody have any different ideas?
If you want to keep this simple and somewhat fast, you could go ahead with your last idea where you consider scaling polygon A so that it gradually fills polygon B. You don't necessarily have to check if the scaled-outward vertices are still inside polygon B. Depending on what your code environment and API is like, you could mask the pixels of the expanding polygon A with the outline of polygon B.
In modern OpenGL, you could do this inside a fragment shader. You would have to render polygon B to a texture, send that texture to the shader, and then use that texture to look up if the current fragment being rendered maps to a texture value that has been set by polygon B. If it is not, the fragment gets discarded. You would need to have the texture be as large as the screen. If not, you would need to include some camera calculations in your shaders so you can "render" the fragment-to-test into the texture in the same way you rendered polygon B into that texture.
Related
I am currently experimenting with openGL, and I'm drawing a lot of circles that I have to break down to triangles (triangulate a circle).
I've been calculating the vertices of the triangles by having an angle that is incremented, and using cos() and sin() to get the x and y values for one vertex.
I searched a bit on the internet about the best and most efficient way of doing this, and even though there's not much information avaliable realized that thin and long triangles (my approach) are not very good. A better approach would be to start with an equilateral triangle and then repeatedly add triangles that cover the larges possible area that's not yet covered.
left - my method; right - new method
I am wondering if this is the most efficient way of doing this, and if yes, how would that be implemented in actual code.
The website where I found the method: link
both triangulations has their pros and cons
The Triangle FAN has equal sized triangles which sometimes looks better with textures (and other interpolated stuff) and the code to generate is simple for loop with parametric circle equation.
The increasing detail mesh has less triangles and can easily support LOD which might be faster. However number of points is not arbitrary (3,6,12,24,48,...). The code is slightly more complicated you could:
start with equilateral triangle remembering circumference edges
so add triangle (p0,p1,p2) to mesh and edges (p0,p1),(p1,p2),(p2,p0) to circumference.
for each edge (p0,p1) of circumference
compute:
p2 = 0.5*(p0+p1); // mid point
p2 = r*p2/|p2|; // normalize it to circle circumference assuming (0,0) is center
add triangle (p0,p1,p2) to mesh and replace p0,p1 edge with (p0,p2),(p2,p1) edges
note that r/|p2| will be the same for all edges in current detail level so no need to compute expensive |p2| over and over again.
goto #2 until you have enough dense triangulation
so 2 for loops and few dynamic lists (points,triangles,circumference_edges,and some temps if not doing this inplace). Also this method does not need goniometrics at all (can be modified to generate the triangle fan too).
Here similar stuff:
sphere triangulation using similar technique
I have two objects: A sphere and an object. Its an object that I created using surface reconstruction - so we do not know the equation of the object. I want to know the intersecting points on the sphere when the object and the sphere intersect. If we had a sphere and a cylinder, we could solve for the equation and figure out the area and all that but the problem here is that the object is not uniform.
Is there a way to find out the intersecting points or area on the sphere?
I'd start by finding the intersection of triangles with the sphere. First find the intersection of each triangle's plane and the sphere, which gives a circle. Then find the circle's intersection/s with the triangle edges in 2D using line/circle tests. The result will be many arcs which I guess you could approximate with lines. I'm not really sure where to go from here without knowing the end goal.
If it's surface area you're after, maybe a numerical approach would be better. I'd cover the sphere in points and count the number inside the non-uniform object. To find if a point is inside, maybe trace outwards and count the intersections with the surface (if it's odd, the point is inside). You could use the stencil buffer for this if you wanted (similar to stencil shadows).
If you want the volume of intersection a quick google search gives "carve", a mesh based CSG library.
Starting with triangles versus the sphere will give you the points of intersection.
You can take the arcs of intersection with each surface and combine them to make fences around the sphere. Ideally your reconstructed object will be in winged-edge format so you could just step from one fence segment to the next, but with reconstructed surfaces I guess you might need to apply some slightly fuzzy logic.
You can determine which side of each fence is inside the reconstructed object and which side is out by factoring in the surface normals along the fence.
You can then cut the sphere along the fences and add the internal bits to the display.
For the other side of things you could remove any triangle completely inside the sphere and cut those that intersect.
Problem specification:
I have a rectangular and uniformly spaced image of pixels with vertex coordinates (i,j), (i+1,j), (i, j+1), (i+1, j+1) [i=0,...,m-1; j=0,...,n-1] and a polygon P with vertex coordinates (x_1,y_1), ..., (x_n, y_n). Now I want to efficiently compute the percentage of every pixel overlapping with P. P can be non-convex, or even self-intersection.
Essentially, this is a "soft" generalization of the scan-line rasterization algorithms which check efficiently if the pixel centers lie inside / outside the polygon.
I can think of the following approaches:
(1) Upsample the image (e.g. by a factor 10*10), count how many subpixel centers lie inside the polygon, and divide by 100. Problems: time efficiency, memory efficiency, accuracy.
(2) Use the scan-line algorithm on a slightly bigger and by (0.5,0.5) translated grid to compute the pixels that lie fully inside / outside, create a list of "borderline" pixels, walk counter-clockwise along the edges and compute the intersection areas with all pixels along the way. Problems: requires subtle coding, easy to introduce bugs.
My question: Has anybody already encountered this problem, and do you know a third, superior approach? And if not, have you made better experiences with (1) or with (2)? I assume that this problem may arise in the context of antialiasing?
Doing the exact geometric analysis might not be too difficult.
Deal with those pixels that are partially covered by the polygon first: you can use a technique from ray-tracing to quickly find all pixels that intersect with the polygon edges. You can then use the Cohen-Sutherland algorithm to efficiently find the points of intersection between the edge and the pixel, and hence you can compute the area of coverage for that pixel.
Note that you can avoid one of the two clipping operations involved in Cohen-Sutherland as adjacent pixels will share a segment intersection point. For instance - if you have two adjacent pixels, A and B that intersect with a segment p->q at points a1, a2, b1 and b2, then a2 and b1 will be the same. Passing the segment a2->q into the routine when clipping against B should avoid repeating work.
You'll have to treat the pixels that contain the polygon vertices specially, but again it shouldn't be too tricky: Cohen-Sutherland will help here as well.
Self-intersecting polygons will also throw up some special cases to handle - pixels that intersect with two or more edges. I can easily imagine that handling these exactly in all cases might get tricky, so I'd be tempted to just do the upsampling approach here.
Once these edge pixels have been identified, you can do the standard scan-line thing to fill in the polygon's interior pixels.
edit: Actually, now that I think more about it, you can totally skip the Cohen-Sutherland step. The algorithm in the linked paper can be easily extended to return the intersection points between the segment and the pixel grid. The segment will leave a given pixel at min( tMaxX, tMaxY ). Keep track of the last exit point to re-use as the entry point for the next pixel.
I would do
1a) Upsample when the pixel is partly overlapping:
but not the whole image, only the current pixel to be checked, or all pixels in the current scan line if that helps.
Than there is no memory argument.
speed? up to 16x16 i dont think that speed is an issue.
I know the Bresenham and related algorithms, and I found a good algorithm to draw a circle with a 1-pixel wide border. Is there any 'standard' algorithm to draw a circle with an n-pixel wide border, without restoring to drawing n circles?
Drawing the pixel and n2 surrounding pixels might be a solution, but it draws many more pixels than needed.
I am writing a graphics library for an embedded system, so I am not looking for a way to do this using an existing library, although a library that does this function and is open source might be a lead.
Compute the points for a single octant for both radii at the same time and simultaneously replicate it eight ways, which is how Bresenham circles are usually drawn anyway. To avoid overdrawing (e.g., for XOR drawing), the second octant should be constrained to draw outside the first octant's x-extents.
Note that this approach breaks down if the line is very thick compared to the radius.
Treat it as a rasterization problem:
Take the bounding box of your annulus.
Consider the image rows falling in the bounding box.
For each row, compute the intersection with the 2 circles (ie solve x^2+y^2=r^2, so x=sqrt(r^2-y^2) for each, for x,y relative to the circle centres.
Fill in the spans. Repeat for next row.
This approach generalizes to all sorts of shapes, can produce sub-pixel coordinates useful for anti-aliasing and scales better with increasing resolution than hacky solutions involving multiple shifted draws.
If the sqrt looks scary for an embedded system, bear in mind there are fast approximate algorithms which would probably be good enough, especially if you're rounding off to the nearest pixel.
I need to create a (large) set of spatial polygons for test purposes. Is there an algorithm that will create a randomly shaped polygon staying within a bounding envelope? I'm using OGC Simple stuff so a routine to create the well known text is the most useful, Language of choice is C# but it's not that important.
Here you can find two examples of how to generate random convex polygons. They both are in Java, but should be easy to rewrite them to C#:
Generate Polygon example from Sun
from JTS mailing list, post Minimum Area bounding box by Michael Bedward
Another possible approach based on generating set of random points and employ Delaunay tessellation.
Generally, problem of generating proper random polygons is not trivial.
Do they really need to be random, or would some real WKT do? Because if it will, just go to http://koordinates.com/ and download a few layers.
What shape is your bounding envelope ? If it's a rectangle, then generate your random polygon as a list of points within [0,1]x[0,1] and scale to the size of your rectangle.
If the envelope is not a rectangle things get a little more tricky. In this case you might get best performance simply by generating points inside the unit square and rejecting any which lie in the part of the unit square which does not scale to the bounding envelope of your choice.
HTH
Mark
Supplement
If you wanted only convex polygons you'd use one of the convex hull algorithms. Since you don't seem to want only convex polygons your suggestion of a circular sweep would work.
But you might find it simpler to sweep along a line parallel to either the x- or y-axis. Assume the x-axis.
Sort the points into x-order.
Select the leftmost (ie first) point. At the y-coordinate of this point draw an imaginary horizontal line across the unit square. Prepare to create a list of points along the boundary of the polygon above the imaginary line, and another list along the boundary below it.
Select the next point. Add it to the upper or lower boundary list as determined by it's y-coordinate.
Continue until you're out of points.
This will generate convex and non-convex polygons, but the non-convexity will be of a fairly limited form. No inlets or twists and turns.
Another Thought
To avoid edge crossings and to avoid a circular sweep after generating your random points inside the unit square you could:
Generate random points inside the unit circle in polar coordinates, ie (r, theta).
Sort the points in theta order.
Transform to cartesian coordinates.
Scale the unit circle to a bounding ellipse of your choice.
Off the top of my head, that seems to work OK