I've a set of triangles creating a mesh along the same plane (think about a wall of a room with its triangle defining the geometry). I need to show a 2D representation of the mesh so that every point of each triangles (x, y, z) is trasformed to (x, y). I need to have the same exactly shape/area of each triangle, placed at the same relative locations of the other triangles.
There are already answers like this that solve how to transform a 3D triangle into 2D like this
Flattening a 3d triangle
but they need to set one vertex of the triangle as the origin. How can i apply the same idea so i don't need to put each triangle at the right position compared to the other triangles?
You can use the same approach. Just pick one point (the first vertex of the first triangle is as good as any) as the origin and use that same value for all the points in your mesh.
This should transform them in a consistent manner.
Related
I'm starting with a single 2D triangle that I want to clip with a (potentially) convex 2D polygon. It's not self-intersecting, but may 'keep' or 'discard' the intersecting area based on the winding order.
I want to end up with a triangulation, i.e. a list of n vertices and m triangles, defined by 3 vertices each, of the clipped region in 2D space.
What would be the easiest (for me as a developer), and what the fastest (in terms of computation) way to achieve this?
If I a right, you want to clip inside the polygon, i.e. get the intersection between the triangle and the polygon.
As the triangle is a convex shape, the Sutherland-Hodgman algorithm is appropriate and no too difficult to implement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland%E2%80%93Hodgman_algorithm).
Notice that if the intersection is not simply connected, the resulting polygon will be connected, with double edges joining the would-be parts. Some cleanup might be required.
After finding the intersection, you re-triangulate using the ear-clipping method or a more efficient one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygon_triangulation).
Alternatively, you can triangulate the polygon and perform the clipping of every triangle with the original one.
The triangle-triangle clipping problem is again solved with Sutherland-Hodgman, somewhat simplified as the input polygons have a constant size, and their intersection is convex and at worse an hexagon. Trigulation of a convex polygon is immediate.
I am given a polyhedron which is represented by a list of planes. The volume delimited by these planes is the actual polyhedron.
I have a list of triangles, and I need to remove all the triangles that intersect or is contained in this polyhedron. My idea is to check each plane for an intersection with the triangle. If it does intersect the triangle, then check if the line segment representing the intersection contains a point that lies on the same side of all other planes.
To catch the case where the triangle is fully contained, we can just check if any of the triangle's corners is contained in the polyhedron (by checking that the point lies on the same side of all planes).
I'm not sure if this solution even works for all cases however, or if there is a more elegant solution. I'm also not sure how I can figure out if the line segment of an intersection contains a point on the same side of all the other planes.
I have thought about the separating axis theorem too, but that would require me to convert the polyhedron into some different representation (since the planes are infinite), and I'm not sure how to do that.
Any help would be appreciated!
As #NicoSchertler suggested in a comment, a solution is to take each triangle and clip it on all the planes. If there are no points left (or under 3 points, so it is not a triangle), the triangle intersects the polyhedron. This seems to work well.
I've been looking at XNA's Barycentric method and the descriptions I find online are pretty opaque to me. An example would be nice. Just an explanation in English would be great... what is the purpose and how could it be used?
From Wikipedia:
In geometry, the barycentric coordinate system is a coordinate system in which the location of a point is specified as the center of mass, or barycenter, of masses placed at the vertices of a simplex (a triangle, tetrahedron, etc).
They are used, I believe, for raytracing in game development.
When a ray intersects a triangle in a normal mesh, you just record it as either a hit or a miss. But if you want to implement a subsurf modifier (image below), which makes meshes much smoother, you will need the distance the ray hit from the center of the triangle (which is much easier to work with in Barycentric coordinates).
Subsurf modifiers are not that hard to visualize:
The cube is the original shape, and the smooth mesh inside is the "subsurfed" cube, I think with a recursion depth of three or four.
Actually, that might not be correct. Don't take my exact word for it, but I do know that they are used for texture mapping on geometric shapes.
Here's a little set of slides you can look at: http://www8.cs.umu.se/kurser/TDBC07/HT04/handouts/HO-lecture11.pdf
In practice the barycentric coordinates of a point P in respect of a triangle ABC are just its weights (u,v,w) according to the triangle's vertices, such that P = u*A + v*B + w*C. If the point lies within the triangle, you got u,v,w in [0,1] and u+v+w = 1.
They are used for any task involving knowledge of a point's location in respect to the vertices of a triangle, like e.g. interpolation of attributes across a triangle. For example in raytracing you got a hitpoint inside the triangle. When you want to know that point's normal or other attributes, you compute its barycentric coordinates within the triangle. Then you can use these weights to sum up the attributes of the triangle's vertices and you got the interpolated attribute.
To compute a point P's barycentric coordinates (u,v,w) within a triangle ABC you can use:
u = [PBC] / [ABC]
v = [APC] / [ABC]
w = [ABP] / [ABC]
where [ABC] denotes the area of the triangle ABC.
Given a list of points that form a simple 2d polygon oriented in 3d space and a normal for that polygon, what is a good way to determine which points are specific 'corner' points?
For example, which point is at the lower left, or the lower right, or the top most point? The polygon may be oriented in any 3d orientation, so I'm pretty sure I need to do something with the normal, but I'm having trouble getting the math right.
Thanks!
You would need more information in order to make that decision. A set of (co-planar) points and a normal is not enough to give you a concept of "lower left" or "top right" or any such relative identification.
Viewing the polygon from the direction of the normal (so that it appears as a simple 2D shape) is a good start, but that shape could be rotated to any arbitrary angle.
Is there some other information in the 3D world that you can use to obtain a coordinate-system reference?
What are you trying to accomplish by knowing the extreme corners of the shape?
Are you looking for a bounding box?
I'm not sure the normal has anything to do with what you are asking.
To get a Bounding box, keep 4 variables: MinX, MaxX, MinY, MaxY
Then loop through all of your points, checking the X values against MaxX and MinX, and your Y values against MaxY and MinY, updating them as needed.
When looping is complete, your box is defined as MinX,MinY as the upper left, MinX, MaxY as upper right, and so on...
Response to your comment:
If you want your box after a projection, what you need is to get the "transformed" points. Then apply bounding box loop as stated above.
Transformed usually implies 2D screen coordinates after a projection(scene render) but it could also mean the 2D points on any plane that you projected on to.
A possible algorithm would be
Find the normal, which you can do by using the cross product of vectors connecting two pairs of different corners
Create a transformation matrix to rotate the polygon so that it is planer in XY space (i.e. normal alligned along the Z axis)
Calculate the coordinates of the bounding box or whatever other definition of corners you are using (as the polygon is now aligned in 2D space this is a considerably simpler problem)
Apply the inverse of the transformation matrix used in step 2 to transform these coordinates back to 3D space.
I believe that your question requires some additional information - namely the coordinate system with respect to which any point could be considered "topmost", or "leftmost".
Don't forget that whilst the normal tells you which way the polygon is facing, it doesn't on its own tell you which way is "up". It's possible to rotate (or "roll") around the normal vector and still be facing in the same direction.
This is why most 3D rendering systems have a camera which contains not only a "view" vector, but also "up" and "right" vectors. Changes to the latter two achieve the effect of the camera "rolling" around the view vector.
Project it onto a plane and get the bounding box.
I have a silly idea, but at the risk of gaining a negative a point, I'll give it a try:
Get the minimum/maximum value from
each three-dimensional axis of each
point on your 2d polygon. A single pass with a loop/iterator over the list of values for every point will suffice, simply replacing the minimum and maximum values as you go. The end result is a list that has the "lowest" X, Y, Z coordinates and "highest" X, Y, Z coordinates.
Iterate through this list of min/max
values to create each point
("corner") of a "bounding box"
around the object. The result
should be a box that always contains
the object regardless of axis
examined or orientation (no point on
the polygon will ever exceed the
maximum or minimums you collect).
Then get the distance of each "2d
polygon" point to each corner
location on the "bounding box"; the
shorter the distance between points,
the "closer" it is to that "corner".
Far from optimal, certainly crummy, but certainly quick. You could probably post-capture this during the object's rotation, by simply looking for the min/max of each rotated x/y/z value, and retaining a list of those values ahead of time.
If you can assume that there is some constraints regarding the shapes, then you might be able to get away with knowing less information. For example, if your shape was the composition of a small square with a long thin triangle on one side (i.e. a simple symmetrical geometry), then you could compare the distance from each list point to the "center of mass." The largest distance would identify the tip of the cone, the second largest would be the two points farthest from the tip of the cone, etc... If there was some order to the list, like points are entered in counter clockwise order (about the normal), you could identify all the points. This sounds like a bit of computation, so it might be reasonable to try to include some extra info with your shapes, like the "center of mass" and a reference point that is located "up" above the COM (but not along the normal). This will give you an "up" vector that you can cross with the normal to define some body coordinates, for example. Also, the normal can be defined by an ordering of the point list. If you can't assume anything about the shapes (or even if the shapes were symmetrical, for example), then you will need more data. It depends on your constraints.
If you know that the polygon in 3D is "flat" you can use the normal to transform all 3D-points of the vertices to a 2D-representation (of the points with respect to the plan in which the polygon is located) - but this still leaves you with defining the origin of this coordinate-system (but this don't really matter for your problem) and with the orientation of at least one of the axes (if you want orthogonal axes you can still rotate them around your choosen origin) - and this is where the trouble starts.
I would recommend using the Y-axis of your 3D-coordinate system, project this on your plane and use the resulting direction as "up" - but then you are in trouble in case your plan is orthogonal to the Y-axis (now you might want to use the projected Z-Axis as "up").
The math is rather simple (you can use the inner product (a.k.a. scalar product) for projection to your plane and some matrix stuff to convert to the 2D-coordinate system - you can get all of it by googling for raytracer algorithms for polygons.
Given a convex polygon represented by a set of vertices (we can assume they're in counter-clockwise order), how can this polygon be broken down into a set of right triangles whose legs are aligned with the X- and Y-axes?
Since I probably lack some math terminology, "legs" are what I'm calling those two lines that are not the hypotenuse (apologies in advance if I've stabbed math jargon in the face--brief corrections are extra credit).
I'm not sure about writing an algorithm to do this but it seems entirely possible to do this for any convex polygon on a piece of paper. For each vertex project a line vertically or horizontally from that vertex until it meets another of these vertical or horizontal lines. For vertices with small changes in angle, where adjacent sides are both travelling in the same direction in terms of x and y, you will need to add two lines from the vertex, one horizontal and one vetical.
Once you have done this, you should be left with a polygon in the centre of the origonal polygon but with sides that are either vertical or horizontal because the sides have been formed by the lines drawn from the vertices of the original polygon. Because these sides are either vertical or horizontal, this shape can easily be sub-divided into a number of triangles with one horizontal side, one vertical side and one hypotenuse.
I'm assuming you've already ordered the vertices as you describe above, and that they indeed define a convex polygon.
Each vertex defines a horizontal line. For V vertices, then, you will have a set of V lines. Discard any line that meets one of the following criteria:
The vertex or vertices defining that line has/have the highest or lowest Y component (if one vertex, that line intersects the polygon only at that point; if two, that line coincides with a polygon edge)
If two vertices have equal Y coordinates otherwise, keep only one of those lines (it's duplicated).
The result will resemble a "banding" of the polygon.
Each horizontal line intersects the polygon at two points. One is its defining vertex. The other is either another vertex, or a point on a segment defined by two vertices. You can determine which is the case easily enough - just simple comparison of Y coords. The coordinates of the intersection with a segment is also easy math, which I leave to you.
Each intersection defines a vertical segment. The segment is contained within the polygon (if it coincides with an edge, you can discard it), and the other end meets either another horizontal line, or the edge of the polygon if that edge is itself horizontal. Determining the case is again a matter of mere comparison of coords. Finally, there may be 0-2 additional vertical segments, defined by the vertices with the highest and/or lowest Y coords, if there is only one of either.
The resulting diagram now shows each band with a right triangle trimmed off each end if possible. Each triangle should meet your criteria. The leftover regions are rectangles; draw an arbitrary diagonal to split each into two more right triangles meeting your criteria.
You're done.
I'm not sure if this is possible. Think about a square that's already aligned with the sides on the X and Y axes. How do you draw triangles using the vertices that are also aligned to the X,Y axes?
Or are the actual sides of the polygon allowed to be along the x,y axis. Which means you could just draw a line down the diagonal of the square. If so, it might be difficult to do with a more complex polygon where some sides are aligned to the axes, while others are not.
I'm not convinced there is a general solution to the question as posed. The problem is the aligned with the X- and Y-axes bit. That means that each vertex needs to be projected to the opposite side of the polygon in both the X and Y directions, and new vertices created at those intersection points. But that process must continue on for each new vertex added that way. You might get lucky and have this process terminate (because there's already a vertex appropriately placed on the opposite side), but in the general case it's just going to go on and on.
If you throw out that restriction, then Neil N's suggestion seems good to me.
Neil N is right, I think. Unfortunate that he didn't provide any specific links.
If you have a trapezoid whose top and bottom are parallel to the X axis, you can easily render that with 4 right triangles. Call that shape a horizontal trapezoid.
If you have a triangle with one side parallel to the X axis, you can render that with 2 right triangles -- or you can consider a degenerate case of the trapezoid with the top of bottom having length zero.
Start at either the top or bottom of your convex hull (i.e. search for coordinate with min or max y) and split it into horizontal trapezoids.
It's not to hard to write the code so that it works just as well with non-convex polygons.
I think this is not possible in the general case.
Consider the polygon {(0, 1), (1, 0), (2, 0)}
.
..
This triangle can not be split into a finite number of triangles as you describe.