I am not sure how to put this problem in a single sentence, sorry if the title is misleading.
I am currently developing a simple terrain editor with a circle-shaped brush size. The image below shows a few cases that represent my problem.
additional info: the square size is fixed and uniform and in the current version, my concern is only to find which one is hit and which one is not (the amount of region covered is important for weighting the hit, but probably not right now)
My current solution (which is not even correct for a certain condition) is: given a hit in a position (x, y) with radius r, loop through all square from (x-radius, y-radius) to (x+radius, y+radius) and apply 2-D box to circle collision detection. But I don't think this is optimal (or even correct IMO).
Can anyone help me with this one? Thank you
Since i can't add a simple comment due to bureaucracy on this website i have to type it out here.
Anyway you're in luck since i was trying to do this recently as well! The way i did it is i iterated through the vertex array and check if the current vertex falls inside the radius of the circle. But perhaps what you want is to check it against each quad center and if that center falls inside the radius then add the whole quad as it's being collided.
Of course depending on the size of your grid the performance will vary so it's good to try to iterate through as few quads as needed. Though accessing these quads from the array is something you have to figure out yourself.
Related
I'm currently working on a glsl shader (EDIT : I'm starting to think that a shader isn't necessarily the best solution and as I'm doing this in processing, I can consider a vectorial solution too) supposed to render something like this but filling the entire 2D space (or at least a larger surface):
To do so, I want to map the repeating patterns on the general leaves shapes that you can see on the top of the sketch below.
My problem is this mapping part : is it possible to find a function that project XY coordinates on the screen to another position in such a way that I can map my patterns the way I want? The leaves must have some kind of UV coordinates inside them (to be able to apply the repeating pattern) and the transformation must be a conformal map because otherwise, there would be some distortions in the pattern.
I've tried several lines of thought but I haven't managed to get the final result :
recursion :
the idea is to first cut the plane in stripes, then cut the stripes in leaves shapes that touch the top and the bottom of the stripes (because that's easier) and finally recursively cut the leaves in halves until the result looks more random. as long as the borders of the stripe aren't on the screen, it shouldn't be too noticeable. The biggest difficulty here is to avoid the distortion.
voronoi :
it may be possible to find a distance function guided by a vector field such that the Voronoi diagram looks more like what I'm looking for. However I don't think it will be possible to have the UV mapping I want. If it's the case, a good approximation woult do the trick, the result doesn't need to be exact as long as it isn't too noticable.
distortion :
it could also be possible to find a more direct way to do this projection. While desperately looking for a solution, I came across the fact that a continuous complex function is a conform map but I haven't managed to go any further.
Finaly, there may be another solution I haven't thought about and I would be glad if someone gave me a complete solution or just a new idea I haven't tried yet.
There was a gif on the internet where someone used some sort of CAD and drew multiple vector pictures in it. On the first frame they zoom-in on a tiny dot, revealing there a whole new different vector picture just on a different scale, and then they proceed to zoom-in further on another tiny dot, revealing another detailed picture, repeating several times. here is the link to the gif
Or another similar example: imagine you have a time-series with a granularity of a millisecond per sample and you zoom out to reveal years-worth of data.
My questions are: how such a fine-detailed data, in the end, gets rendered, when a huge amount of data ends up getting aliased into a single pixel.
Do you have to go through the whole dataset to render that pixel (i.e. in case of time-series: go through million records to just average them out into 1 line or in case of CAD render whole vector picture and blur it into tiny dot), or there are certain level-of-detail optimizations that can be applied so that you don't have to do this?
If so, how do they work and where one can learn about it?
This is a very well known problem in games development. In the following I am assuming you are using a scene graph, a node-based tree of objects.
Typical solutions involve a mix of these techniques:
Level Of Detail (LOD): multiple resolutions of the same model, which are shown or hidden so that only one is "visible" at any time. When to hide and show is usually determined by the distance between camera and object, but you could also include the scale of the object as a factor. Modern 3d/CAD software will sometimes offer you automatic "simplification" of models, which can be used as the low res LOD models.
At the lowest level, you could even just use the object's bounding
box. Checking whether a bounding box is in view is only around 1-7 point checks depending on how you check. And you can utilise object parenting for transitive bounding boxes.
Clipping: if a polygon is not rendered in the view port at all, no need to render it. In the GIF you posted, when the camera zooms in on a new scene, what is left from the larger model is a single polygon in the background.
Re-scaling of world coordinates: as you zoom in, the coordinates for vertices become sub-zero floating point numbers. Given you want all coordinates as precise as possible and given modern CPUs can only handle floats with 64 bits precision (and often use only 32 for better performance), it's a good idea to reset the scaling of the visible objects. What I mean by that is that as your camera zooms in to say 1/1000 of the previous view, you can scale up the bigger objects by a factor of 1000, and at the same time adjust the camera position and focal length. Any newly attached small model would use its original scale, thus preserving its precision.
This transition would be invisible to the viewer, but allows you to stay within well-defined 3d coordinates while being able to zoom in infinitely.
On a higher level: As you zoom into something and the camera gets closer to an object, it appears as if the world grows bigger relative to the view. While normally the camera space is moving and the world gets multiplied by the camera's matrix, the same effect can be achieved by changing the world coordinates instead of the camera.
First, you can use caching. With tiles, like it's done in cartography. You'll still need to go over all the points, but after that you'll be able zoom-in/zoom-out quite rapidly.
But if you don't have extra memory for cache (not so much actually, much less than the data itself), or don't have time to go over all the points you can use probabilistic approach.
It can be as simple as peeking only every other point (or every 10th point or whatever suits you). It yields decent results for some data. Again in cartography it works quite well for shorelines, but not so well for houses or administrative boarders - anything with a lot of straight lines.
Or you can take a more hardcore probabilistic approach: randomly peek some points, and if, for example, there're 100 data points that hit pixel one and only 50 hit pixel two, then you can more or less safely assume that if you'll continue to peek points still pixel one will be twice as likely to be hit that pixel two. So you can just give up and draw pixel one with a twice more heavy color.
Also consider how much data you can and want to put in a pixel. If you'll draw a pixel in black and white, then there're only 256 variants of color. And you don't need to be more precise. Or if you're going to draw a pixel in full color then you still need to ask yourself: will anyone notice the difference between something like rgb(123,12,54) and rgb(123,11,54)?
This seems to be a rather asked question - (hear me out first! :)
I've created a polygon with perlin noise, and it looks like this:
I need to generate a texture from this array of points. (I'm using Monogame/XNA, but I assume this question is somewhat agnostic).
Anyway, researching this problem tells me that many people use raycasting to determine how many times a line crosses over the polygon shape (If once, it's inside. twice or zero times, it's outside). This makes sense, but I wonder if there is a better way, given that I have all of the points.
Doing a small raycast for every pixel I want to fill in seems excessive - is this the only/best way?
If I have a small 500px square image I need to fill in, I'll need to do a raycast for 250,000 individual pixels, which seems like an awful lot.
If you want to do this for every pixel, you can use a sweeping line:
Start from the topmost coordinate and examine a horizontal ray from left to right. Calculate all intersections with the polygon and sort them by their x-coordinate. Then iterate all pixels on the line and remember if you are in or out. Whenever you encounter an intersection, switch to the other side. If some pixel is in, set the texture. If not, ignore it. Do this from top to bottom for every possible horizontal line.
The intersection calculation could be enhanced in several ways. E.g. by using an acceleration data structure like a grid, quadtree, etc. or by examining the intersecting or touching edges of the polygon before. Then, when you sweep the line, you will already know, which edges will cause an intersection.
I've seen many mandelbrot image generator drawing a low resolution fractal of the mandelbrot and then continuously improve the fractal. Is this a tiling algorithm? Here is an example: http://neave.com/fractal/
Update: I've found this about recursively subdivide and calculate the mandelbrot: http://www.metabit.org/~rfigura/figura-fractal/math.html. Maybe it's possible to use a kd-tree to subdivide the image?
Update 2: http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/faster-fractals-through-algebra/
Update 3: http://www.fractalforums.com/programming/mandelbrot-exterior-optimization/15/
Author of Fractal eXtreme and the randomascii blog post linked in the question here.
Fractal eXtreme does a few things to give a gradually improving fractal image:
Start from the middle, not from the top. This is a trivial change that many early fractal programs ignored. The center should be the area the user cares the most about. This can either be starting with a center line, or spiraling out. Spiraling out has more overhead so I only use it on computationally intense images.
Do an initial low-res pass with 8x8 blocks (calculating one pixel out of 64). This gives a coarse initial view that is gradually refined at 4x4, 2x2, then 1x1 resolutions. Note that each pass does three times as many pixels as all previous passes -- don't recalculate the original points. Subsequent passes also start at the center, because that is more important.
A multi-pass method lends itself well to guessing. If four pixels in two rows have the same value then the pixels in-between probably have the same value, so don't calculate them. This works extremely well on some images. A cleanup pass at the end to look for pixels that were miscalculated is necessary and usually finds a few errors, but I've never seen visible errors after the cleanup pass, and this can give a 10x+ speedup. This feature can be disabled. The success of this feature (guess percentage) can be viewed in the status window.
When zooming in (double-click to double the magnification) the previously calculated pixels can be used as a starting point so that only three quarters of the pixels need calculating. This doesn't work when the required precision increases but these discontinuities are rare.
More sophisticated algorithms are definitely possible. Curve following, for instances.
Having fast math also helps. The high-precision routines in FX are fully unwound assembly language (generated by C# code) that uses 64-bit multiplies.
FX also has a couple of checks for points within the two biggest bulbs, to avoid calculating them at all. It also watches for cycles in calculations -- if the exact same point shows up then the calculations will repeat.
To see this in action visit http://www.cygnus-software.com/
I think that site is not as clever as you give it credit for. I think what happens on a zoom is this:
Take the previous image, scale it up using a standard interpolation method. This gives you the 'blurry' zoomed in image. Click the zoom in button several times to see this best
Then, in concentric circles starting from the central point, recalculate squares of the image in full resolution for the new zoom level. This 'sharpens' the image progressively from the centre outwards. Because you're probably looking at the centre, you see the improvement straight away.
You can more clearly see what it's doing by zooming far in, then dragging the image in a diagonal direction, so that almost all the screen is undrawn. When you release the drag, you will see the image rendered progressively in squares, in concentric circles from the new centre.
I haven't checked, but I don't think it's doing anything clever to treat in-set points differently - it's just that because an entirely-in-set square will be black both before and after rerendering, you can't see a difference.
The oldschool Mandelbrot rendering algorithm is the one that begins calculating pixels at the top-left position, goes right until it reaches the end of the screen then moves to the beginning of next line, like an ordinary typewriter machine (visually).
The linked algorithm is just calculating pixels in a different order, and when it calculates one, it quickly makes assumption about certain neighboring pixels and later goes back to properly redraw them. That's when you see improvement, think of it as displaying a progressive JPEG. If you zoom into the set, certain pixel values will remain the same (they don't need to be recalculated) the interim pixels will be guessed, quickly drawn and later recalculated.
A continuously improving Mandelbrot is just for your eyes, it will never finish earlier than a properly calculating per-pixel algorithm which can detect "islands".
I'm doing some image processing, and I need to find some information on line growing algorithms - not sure if I'm using the right terminology here, so please call me out on this is needs be.
Imagine my input image is simply a circle on a black background. I'd basically like extract the coordinates, so that I may draw this circle elsewhere based on the coordinates.
Note: I am already using edge detection image filters, but I thought it best to explain with a simple example.
Basically what I'm looking to do is detect lines in an image, and store the result in a data type where by I have say a class called Line, and various different Point objects (containing X/Y coordinates).
class Line
{
Point points[];
}
class Point
{
int X, Y;
}
And this is how I'd like to use it...
Line line;
for each pixel in image
{
if pixel should be added to line
{
add pixel coordinates to line;
}
}
I have no idea how to approach this as you can probably establish, so pointers to any subject matter would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you right, but the standard way is to use a Hough transform. It's a two step process:
From the given image, determine whether each pixel is an edge pixel (this process creates a new "binary" image). A standard way to do this is Canny edge-detection.
Using the binary image of edge pixels, apply the Hough transform. The basic idea is: for each edge pixel, compute all lines through it, and then take the lines that went through the most edge pixels.
Edit: apparently you're looking for the boundary. Here's how you do that.
Recall that the Canny edge detector actually gives you a gradient also (not just the magnitude). So if you pick an edge pixel and follow along (or against) that vector, you'll find the next edge pixel. Keep going until you don't hit an edge pixel anymore, and there's your boundary.
What you are talking about is not an easy problem! I have found that this website is very helpful in image processing: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/wksheets.htm
One thing to try is the Hough Transform, which detects shapes in an image. Mind you, it's not easy to figure out.
For edge detection, the best is Canny edge detection, also a non-trivial task to implement.
Assuming the following is true:
Your image contains a single shape on a background
You can determine which pixels are background and which pixels are the shape
You only want to grab the boundary of the outside of the shape (this excludes donut-like shapes where you want to trace the inside circle)
You can use a contour tracing algorithm such as the Moore-neighbour algorithm.
Steps:
Find an initial boundary pixel. To do this, start from the bottom-left corner of the image, travel all the way up and if you reach the top, start over at the bottom moving right one pixel and repeat, until you find a shape pixel. Make sure you keep track of the location of the pixel that you were at before you found the shape pixel.
Find the next boundary pixel. Travel clockwise around the last visited boundary pixel, starting from the background pixel you last visited before finding the current boundary pixel.
Repeat step 2 until you revisit first boundary pixel. Once you visit the first boundary pixel a second time, you've traced the entire boundary of the shape and can stop.
You could take a look at http://processing.org/ the project was created to teach the fundamentals of computer programming within a visual context. There is the language, based on java, and an IDE to make 'sketches' in. It is a very good package to quickly work with visual objects and has good examples of things like edge detection that would be useful to you.
Just to echo the answers above you want to do edge detection and Hough transform.
Note that a Hough transform for a circle is slightly tricky (you are solving for 3 parameters, x,y,radius) you might want to just use a library like openCV