Search Results

Search found 36 results on 2 pages for 'concave'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

• Matlab - Propagate unit vectors on to the edge of shape boundaries

  - by Graham

  Hi I have a set of unit vectors which I want to propagate on to the edge of shape boundary defined by a binary image. The shape boundary is defined by a 1px wide white edge. I also have the coordinates of these points stored in a 2 row by n column matrix. The shape forms a concave boundary with no holes within itself made of around 2500 points. What would be the best method to do this? Are there some sort of ray tracing algorithms that could be used? Or would it be a case of taking the unit vector and multiplying it by a scalar and testing after multiplication if the end point of the vector is outside the shape boundary. When the end point of the unit vector is outside the shape, just find the point of intersection? Thank you very much in advance for any help!

  Read the article

• Is this possible with OpenGL?

  - by user146780

  Basically what I'd like to do is make textured NGONS. I also want to use a tesselator (GLU) to make concave and multicontour objects. I was wondering how the texture comes into play though. I think that the tesselator will return verticies so I will add these to my array, that's fine. But my vertex array will contain more than one polygon object so then how can I tell it when to bind the texture like in immediate mode? Right now I feel stuck with one call to bind. How can this be done? Thanks

  Read the article

• how to find out if a shape is passable

  - by jd

  I have a complex polygon (possibly concave) and a few of its edges marked as entry/exit points. there is a possibility that inside this polygon may lie one or more blockades of arbitrary shape. what approaches could I use to determine whether a path of certain width exists between a pair of entry/exit edges? having read through the question it looks like a homework type - it is not. I just wish to have a at least a few leads I could pursue, as this is new to me.

  Read the article

• How can I convert a 2D bitmap (Used for terrain) to a 2D polygon mesh for collision?

  - by Megadanxzero

  So I'm making an artillery type game, sort of similar to Worms with all the usual stuff like destructible terrain etc... and while I could use per-pixel collision that doesn't give me collision normals or anything like that. Converting it all to a mesh would also mean I could use an existing physics library, which would be better than anything I can make by myself. I've seen people mention doing this by using Marching Squares to get contours in the bitmap, but I can't find anything which mentions how to turn these into a mesh (Unless it refers to a 3D mesh with contour lines defining different heights, which is NOT what I want). At the moment I can get a basic Marching Squares contour which looks something like this (Where the grid-like lines in the background would be the Marching Squares 'cells'): That needs to be interpolated to get a smoother, more accurate result but that's the general idea. I had a couple ideas for how to turn this into a mesh, but many of them wouldn't work in certain cases, and the one which I thought would work perfectly has turned out to be very slow and I've not even finished it yet! Ideally I'd like whatever I end up using to be fast enough to do every frame for cases such as rapidly-firing weapons, or digging tools. I'm thinking there must be some kind of existing algorithm/technique for turning something like this into a mesh, but I can't seem to find anything. I've looked at some things like Delaunay Triangulation, but as far as I can tell that won't correctly handle concave shapes like the above example, and also wouldn't account for holes within the terrain. I'll go through the technique I came up with for comparison and I guess I'll see if anyone has a better idea. First of all interpolate the Marching Squares contour lines, creating vertices from the line ends, and getting vertices where lines cross cell edges (Important). Then, for each cell containing vertices create polygons by using 2 vertices, and a cell corner as the 3rd vertex (Probably the closest corner). Do this for each cell and I think you should have a mesh which accurately represents the original bitmap (Though there will only be polygons at the edges of the bitmap, and large filled in areas in between will be empty). The only problem with this is that it involves lopping through every pixel once for the initial Marching Squares, then looping through every cell (image height + 1 x image width + 1) at least twice, which ends up being really slow for any decently sized image...

  Read the article

• Robust line of sight test on the inside of a polygon with tolerance

  - by David Gouveia

  Foreword This is a followup to this question and the main problem I'm trying to solve. My current solution is an hack which involves inflating the polygon, and doing most calculations on the inflated polygon instead. My goal is to remove this step completely, and correctly solve the problem with calculations only. Problem Given a concave polygon and treating all of its edges as if they were walls in a level, determine whether two points A and B are in line of sight of each other, while accounting for some degree of floating point errors. I'm currently basing my solution on a series of line-segment interection tests. In other words: If any of the end points are outside the polygon, they are not in line of sight. If both end points are inside the polygon, and the line segment from A to B crosses any of the edges from the polygon, then they are not in line of sight. If both end points are inside the polygon, and the line segment from A to B does not cross any of the edges from the polygon, then they are in line of sight. But the problem is dealing correctly with all the edge cases. In particular, it must be able to deal with all the situations depicted below, where red lines are examples that should be rejected, and green lines are examples that should be accepted. I probably missed a few other situations, such as when the line segment from A to B is colinear with an edge, but one of the end points is outside the polygon. One point of particular interest is the difference between 1 and 9. In both cases, both end points are vertices of the polygon, and there are no edges being intersected, but 1 should be rejected while 9 should be accepted. How to distinguish these two? I could check some middle point within the segment to see if it falls inside or not, but it's easy to come up with situations in which it would fail. Point 7 was also pretty tricky and I had to to treat it as a special case, which checks if two points are adjacent vertices of the polygon directly. But there are also other chances of line segments being col linear with the edges of the polygon, and I'm still not entirely sure how I should handle those cases. Is there any well known solution to this problem?

  Read the article

• Long labels appear to be hidden with "..." - MS Chart Pie Graph control

  - by Mike

  I would like the labels to be completely visible, and if necessary, just spin the pie chart so that the text will fit without being hidden with "...". Here is an example Anyone know how to fix this so it is not shortened? This is the control on my asp page. <asp:CHART ID="Chart1" runat="server" BorderColor="181, 64, 1" BorderDashStyle="Solid" BorderWidth="2" Height="371px" ImageLocation="~/TempImages/ChartPic_#SEQ(300,3)" ImageType="Png" Palette="None" Width="693px" BorderlineColor=""> <legends> <asp:Legend BackColor="Transparent" Enabled="False" Font="Trebuchet MS, 8.25pt, style=Bold" IsTextAutoFit="True" Name="Default"> </asp:Legend> </legends> <series> <asp:Series ChartArea="ChartArea1" ChartType="Pie" Legend="Default" Name="Series1" CustomProperties="PieLabelStyle=Outside, PieDrawingStyle=Concave" YValuesPerPoint="6" Font="Trebuchet MS, 8.25pt, style=Bold"> <SmartLabelStyle AllowOutsidePlotArea="No" MaxMovingDistance="100" /> </asp:Series> </series> <chartareas> <asp:ChartArea BackColor="#DEEDF7" BackGradientStyle="TopBottom" BackSecondaryColor="White" BorderColor="64, 64, 64, 64" BorderDashStyle="Solid" Name="ChartArea1" ShadowColor="Transparent"> <Area3DStyle Enable3D="True" IsRightAngleAxes="False" /> </asp:ChartArea> </chartareas> </asp:CHART> Thanks.

  Read the article

• Matlab - Propagate points orthogonally on to the edge of shape boundaries

  - by Graham

  Hi I have a set of points which I want to propagate on to the edge of shape boundary defined by a binary image. The shape boundary is defined by a 1px wide white edge. I also have the coordinates of these points stored in a 2 row by n column matrix. The shape forms a concave boundary with no holes within itself made of around 2500 points. I want to cast a ray from each point from the set of points in an orthogonal direction and detect at which point it intersects the shape boundary at. What would be the best method to do this? Are there some sort of ray tracing algorithms that could be used? Or would it be a case of taking orthogonal unit vector and multiplying it by a scalar and testing after multiplication if the end point of the vector is outside the shape boundary. When the end point of the unit vector is outside the shape, just find the point of intersection? Thank you very much in advance for any help!

  Read the article

• Is it possible to execute a function in Mongo that accepts any parameters?

  - by joshua.clayton

  I'm looking to write a function to do a custom query on a collection in Mongo. Problem is, I want to reuse that function. My thought was this (obviously contrived): var awesome = function(count) { return function() { return this.size == parseInt(count); }; } So then I could do something along the lines of: db.collection.find(awesome(5)); However, I get this error: error: { "$err" : "error on invocation of $where function: JS Error: ReferenceError: count is not defined nofile_b:1" } So, it looks like Mongo isn't honoring scope, but I'm really not sure why. Any insight would be appreciated. To go into more depth of what I'd like to do: A collection of documents has lat/lng values, and I want to find all documents within a concave or convex polygon. I have the function written but would ideally be able to reuse the function, so I want to pass in an array of points composing my polygon to the function I execute on Mongo's end. I've looked at Mongo's geospatial querying and it currently on supports circle and box queries - I need something more complex.

  Read the article

• Finding edge and corner values of an image in matlab

  - by James

  Hi, this problem links to two other questions i've asked on here. I am tracing the outline of an image and plotting this to a dxf file. I would like to use the bwboundaries function to find the coordinates of the edges of the image, find the corner coordinates using the cornermetric function and then remove any edge coordinates that are not a corner. The important thing I need to be able to do is keep the order of the corner elements obtained from bwboundaries, so that the section traces properly. The dxf function I have that draws from the coordinates draws lines between coordinates that are next to each other, so the line has to be drawn "around" the section rather than straight between the corner points. The reason I am doing this is because there are less coordinates obtained this way, so it is easier to amend the dxf file (as there are less points to manipulate). The code I have so far is: %# Shape to be traced bw = zeros(200); bw(20:40,20:180) = 1; bw(20:180,90:110) = 1; bw(140:180,20:185) = 1; %# Boundary Finding Section [Boundary] = bwboundaries(bw); %Traces the boundary of each section figure, imshow(bw); hold on; colors=['b' 'g' 'r' 'c' 'm' 'y']; for k=1:length(Boundary) perim = Boundary{k}; %Obtains perimeter coordinates (as a 2D matrix) from the cell array cidx = mod(k,length(colors))+1;% Obtains colours for the plot plot(perim(:,2), perim(:,1),... colors(cidx),'LineWidth',2); end Coordmat = cell2mat(Boundary) %Converts the traced regions to a matrix X = Coordmat(:,1) Y = Coordmat(:,2) % This gives the edge coordinates in matrix form %% Corner Finding Section (from Jonas' answer to a previous question %# get corners cornerProbability = cornermetric(bw); cornerIdx = find(cornerProbability==max(cornerProbability(:))); %# Label the image. bwlabel puts 1 for the first feature, 2 for the second, etc. %# Since concave corners are placed just outside the feature, grow the features %# a little before labeling bw2 = imdilate(bw,ones(3)); labeledImage = bwlabel(bw2); %# read the feature number associated with the corner cornerLabels = labeledImage(cornerIdx); %# find all corners that are associated with feature 1 corners_1 = cornerIdx(cornerLabels==1) [Xcorners, Ycorners] = ind2sub(200,corners_1) % Convert subscripts The code I have is, to give a matrix Xfin for the final x coordinates (which are on the edge AND at a corner. Xfin = zeros(length(X),1) for i = Xcorners XFin(i) = Xcorners if i~= Xcorners XFin(i) = [] end end However, this does not work correctly, because the values in the solution are sorted into order, and only one of each value remains. As I said, I would like the corner elements to be in the same order as obtained from bwboundaries, to allow the image to trace properly. Thanks

  Read the article

• Does anyone really understand how HFSC scheduling in Linux/BSD works?

  - by Mecki

  I read the original SIGCOMM '97 PostScript paper about HFSC, it is very technically, but I understand the basic concept. Instead of giving a linear service curve (as with pretty much every other scheduling algorithm), you can specify a convex or concave service curve and thus it is possible to decouple bandwidth and delay. However, even though this paper mentions to kind of scheduling algorithms being used (real-time and link-share), it always only mentions ONE curve per scheduling class (the decoupling is done by specifying this curve, only one curve is needed for that). Now HFSC has been implemented for BSD (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc.) using the ALTQ scheduling framework and it has been implemented Linux using the TC scheduling framework (part of iproute2). Both implementations added two additional service curves, that were NOT in the original paper! A real-time service curve and an upper-limit service curve. Again, please note that the original paper mentions two scheduling algorithms (real-time and link-share), but in that paper both work with one single service curve. There never have been two independent service curves for either one as you currently find in BSD and Linux. Even worse, some version of ALTQ seems to add an additional queue priority to HSFC (there is no such thing as priority in the original paper either). I found several BSD HowTo's mentioning this priority setting (even though the man page of the latest ALTQ release knows no such parameter for HSFC, so officially it does not even exist). This all makes the HFSC scheduling even more complex than the algorithm described in the original paper and there are tons of tutorials on the Internet that often contradict each other, one claiming the opposite of the other one. This is probably the main reason why nobody really seems to understand how HFSC scheduling really works. Before I can ask my questions, we need a sample setup of some kind. I'll use a very simple one as seen in the image below: Here are some questions I cannot answer because the tutorials contradict each other: What for do I need a real-time curve at all? Assuming A1, A2, B1, B2 are all 128 kbit/s link-share (no real-time curve for either one), then each of those will get 128 kbit/s if the root has 512 kbit/s to distribute (and A and B are both 256 kbit/s of course), right? Why would I additionally give A1 and B1 a real-time curve with 128 kbit/s? What would this be good for? To give those two a higher priority? According to original paper I can give them a higher priority by using a curve, that's what HFSC is all about after all. By giving both classes a curve of [256kbit/s 20ms 128kbit/s] both have twice the priority than A2 and B2 automatically (still only getting 128 kbit/s on average) Does the real-time bandwidth count towards the link-share bandwidth? E.g. if A1 and B1 both only have 64kbit/s real-time and 64kbit/s link-share bandwidth, does that mean once they are served 64kbit/s via real-time, their link-share requirement is satisfied as well (they might get excess bandwidth, but lets ignore that for a second) or does that mean they get another 64 kbit/s via link-share? So does each class has a bandwidth "requirement" of real-time plus link-share? Or does a class only have a higher requirement than the real-time curve if the link-share curve is higher than the real-time curve (current link-share requirement equals specified link-share requirement minus real-time bandwidth already provided to this class)? Is upper limit curve applied to real-time as well, only to link-share, or maybe to both? Some tutorials say one way, some say the other way. Some even claim upper-limit is the maximum for real-time bandwidth + link-share bandwidth? What is the truth? Assuming A2 and B2 are both 128 kbit/s, does it make any difference if A1 and B1 are 128 kbit/s link-share only, or 64 kbit/s real-time and 128 kbit/s link-share, and if so, what difference? If I use the seperate real-time curve to increase priorities of classes, why would I need "curves" at all? Why is not real-time a flat value and link-share also a flat value? Why are both curves? The need for curves is clear in the original paper, because there is only one attribute of that kind per class. But now, having three attributes (real-time, link-share, and upper-limit) what for do I still need curves on each one? Why would I want the curves shape (not average bandwidth, but their slopes) to be different for real-time and link-share traffic? According to the little documentation available, real-time curve values are totally ignored for inner classes (class A and B), they are only applied to leaf classes (A1, A2, B1, B2). If that is true, why does the ALTQ HFSC sample configuration (search for 3.3 Sample configuration) set real-time curves on inner classes and claims that those set the guaranteed rate of those inner classes? Isn't that completely pointless? (note: pshare sets the link-share curve in ALTQ and grate the real-time curve; you can see this in the paragraph above the sample configuration). Some tutorials say the sum of all real-time curves may not be higher than 80% of the line speed, others say it must not be higher than 70% of the line speed. Which one is right or are they maybe both wrong? One tutorial said you shall forget all the theory. No matter how things really work (schedulers and bandwidth distribution), imagine the three curves according to the following "simplified mind model": real-time is the guaranteed bandwidth that this class will always get. link-share is the bandwidth that this class wants to become fully satisfied, but satisfaction cannot be guaranteed. In case there is excess bandwidth, the class might even get offered more bandwidth than necessary to become satisfied, but it may never use more than upper-limit says. For all this to work, the sum of all real-time bandwidths may not be above xx% of the line speed (see question above, the percentage varies). Question: Is this more or less accurate or a total misunderstanding of HSFC? And if assumption above is really accurate, where is prioritization in that model? E.g. every class might have a real-time bandwidth (guaranteed), a link-share bandwidth (not guaranteed) and an maybe an upper-limit, but still some classes have higher priority needs than other classes. In that case I must still prioritize somehow, even among real-time traffic of those classes. Would I prioritize by the slope of the curves? And if so, which curve? The real-time curve? The link-share curve? The upper-limit curve? All of them? Would I give all of them the same slope or each a different one and how to find out the right slope? I still haven't lost hope that there exists at least a hand full of people in this world that really understood HFSC and are able to answer all these questions accurately. And doing so without contradicting each other in the answers would be really nice ;-)

  Read the article

• Does anyone really understand how HFSC scheduling in Linux/BSD works?

  - by Mecki

  I read the original SIGCOMM '97 PostScript paper about HFSC, it is very technically, but I understand the basic concept. Instead of giving a linear service curve (as with pretty much every other scheduling algorithm), you can specify a convex or concave service curve and thus it is possible to decouple bandwidth and delay. However, even though this paper mentions to kind of scheduling algorithms being used (real-time and link-share), it always only mentions ONE curve per scheduling class (the decoupling is done by specifying this curve, only one curve is needed for that). Now HFSC has been implemented for BSD (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc.) using the ALTQ scheduling framework and it has been implemented Linux using the TC scheduling framework (part of iproute2). Both implementations added two additional service curves, that were NOT in the original paper! A real-time service curve and an upper-limit service curve. Again, please note that the original paper mentions two scheduling algorithms (real-time and link-share), but in that paper both work with one single service curve. There never have been two independent service curves for either one as you currently find in BSD and Linux. Even worse, some version of ALTQ seems to add an additional queue priority to HSFC (there is no such thing as priority in the original paper either). I found several BSD HowTo's mentioning this priority setting (even though the man page of the latest ALTQ release knows no such parameter for HSFC, so officially it does not even exist). This all makes the HFSC scheduling even more complex than the algorithm described in the original paper and there are tons of tutorials on the Internet that often contradict each other, one claiming the opposite of the other one. This is probably the main reason why nobody really seems to understand how HFSC scheduling really works. Before I can ask my questions, we need a sample setup of some kind. I'll use a very simple one as seen in the image below: Here are some questions I cannot answer because the tutorials contradict each other: What for do I need a real-time curve at all? Assuming A1, A2, B1, B2 are all 128 kbit/s link-share (no real-time curve for either one), then each of those will get 128 kbit/s if the root has 512 kbit/s to distribute (and A and B are both 256 kbit/s of course), right? Why would I additionally give A1 and B1 a real-time curve with 128 kbit/s? What would this be good for? To give those two a higher priority? According to original paper I can give them a higher priority by using a curve, that's what HFSC is all about after all. By giving both classes a curve of [256kbit/s 20ms 128kbit/s] both have twice the priority than A2 and B2 automatically (still only getting 128 kbit/s on average) Does the real-time bandwidth count towards the link-share bandwidth? E.g. if A1 and B1 both only have 64kbit/s real-time and 64kbit/s link-share bandwidth, does that mean once they are served 64kbit/s via real-time, their link-share requirement is satisfied as well (they might get excess bandwidth, but lets ignore that for a second) or does that mean they get another 64 kbit/s via link-share? So does each class has a bandwidth "requirement" of real-time plus link-share? Or does a class only have a higher requirement than the real-time curve if the link-share curve is higher than the real-time curve (current link-share requirement equals specified link-share requirement minus real-time bandwidth already provided to this class)? Is upper limit curve applied to real-time as well, only to link-share, or maybe to both? Some tutorials say one way, some say the other way. Some even claim upper-limit is the maximum for real-time bandwidth + link-share bandwidth? What is the truth? Assuming A2 and B2 are both 128 kbit/s, does it make any difference if A1 and B1 are 128 kbit/s link-share only, or 64 kbit/s real-time and 128 kbit/s link-share, and if so, what difference? If I use the seperate real-time curve to increase priorities of classes, why would I need "curves" at all? Why is not real-time a flat value and link-share also a flat value? Why are both curves? The need for curves is clear in the original paper, because there is only one attribute of that kind per class. But now, having three attributes (real-time, link-share, and upper-limit) what for do I still need curves on each one? Why would I want the curves shape (not average bandwidth, but their slopes) to be different for real-time and link-share traffic? According to the little documentation available, real-time curve values are totally ignored for inner classes (class A and B), they are only applied to leaf classes (A1, A2, B1, B2). If that is true, why does the ALTQ HFSC sample configuration (search for 3.3 Sample configuration) set real-time curves on inner classes and claims that those set the guaranteed rate of those inner classes? Isn't that completely pointless? (note: pshare sets the link-share curve in ALTQ and grate the real-time curve; you can see this in the paragraph above the sample configuration). Some tutorials say the sum of all real-time curves may not be higher than 80% of the line speed, others say it must not be higher than 70% of the line speed. Which one is right or are they maybe both wrong? One tutorial said you shall forget all the theory. No matter how things really work (schedulers and bandwidth distribution), imagine the three curves according to the following "simplified mind model": real-time is the guaranteed bandwidth that this class will always get. link-share is the bandwidth that this class wants to become fully satisfied, but satisfaction cannot be guaranteed. In case there is excess bandwidth, the class might even get offered more bandwidth than necessary to become satisfied, but it may never use more than upper-limit says. For all this to work, the sum of all real-time bandwidths may not be above xx% of the line speed (see question above, the percentage varies). Question: Is this more or less accurate or a total misunderstanding of HSFC? And if assumption above is really accurate, where is prioritization in that model? E.g. every class might have a real-time bandwidth (guaranteed), a link-share bandwidth (not guaranteed) and an maybe an upper-limit, but still some classes have higher priority needs than other classes. In that case I must still prioritize somehow, even among real-time traffic of those classes. Would I prioritize by the slope of the curves? And if so, which curve? The real-time curve? The link-share curve? The upper-limit curve? All of them? Would I give all of them the same slope or each a different one and how to find out the right slope? I still haven't lost hope that there exists at least a hand full of people in this world that really understood HFSC and are able to answer all these questions accurately. And doing so without contradicting each other in the answers would be really nice ;-)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2