I have a simple hexagonal grid, where I'm selecting a group of hexagons, which will then be filled with some random points.
Let me explain the exact procedure of generating the points:
Using a list of hex coordinates I'm selecting hexagons.
Group hexagons into areas.
Store all edge points, for each area individually.
Loop through areas:
Calculate area boundary ( required for definig the range for random point generator )
Draw area (bounding) square. (to see whether the computation was correct)
Based on the bounding square min,max values generate random points
Test if point is inside the area shape. (The shape is defined by area edge points)
If the point passed the above test, it's the pushed into an array.
loop through the array of points and draw them on screen.
Now I tried these two methods to determine whether a point lies inside a specific shape.
cn_PnPoly: function( P, V, n ){ ///// Point , array of vertices , array size ////
var cn = 0, vt = 0.0;
for (var i=0; i< (n-1); i++) { // edge from V[i] to V[i+1]
if (((V[i].y <= P.y) && (V[i+1].y > P.y)) // an upward crossing
|| ((V[i].y > P.y) && (V[i+1].y <= P.y))) { // a downward crossing
// compute the actual edge-ray intersect x-coordinate
vt = (P.y - V[i].y) / (V[i+1].y - V[i].y);
if (P.x < V[i].x + vt * (V[i+1].x - V[i].x)) // P.x < intersect
++cn; // a valid crossing of y=P.y right of P.x
}
}
return (cn&1); // 0 if even (out), and 1 if odd (in)
},
result:
isInHexBounary: function( p, points, l ){ ///// Point , array of vertices , array size ////
var result = false;
for (i = 0, j = l - 1; i < l; j = i++) {
if ((points[i].y > p.y) != (points[j].y > p.y) && (p.x < (points[j].x - points[i].x) * (p.y - points[i].y) / (points[j].y-points[i].y) + points[i].x)) {
result = !result;
}
}
return result;
},
result:
I suppose the first method requires to have all the points in specific order, and that's why it's not working properly.
But the second one seems to be working almost correct , apart from some parts. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?
Update:
It's turning out that for mos tof the algorhytms it's required to have the points in a specific order, so I calculated angle of each point relative to the average center point. And then sorted all the points by angle. Both algorithms now return similar results. Although there is sitll some points leaking through the area shape.
findCenter: function( points ){
var x = 0, y = 0, i, len = points.length;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
x += points[i].x;
y += points[i].y;
}
return {x: x / len, y: y / len};
},
findAngles: function(c, points){
var i, len = points.length, p, dx, dy;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
p = points[i];
dx = p.x - c.x;
dy = p.y - c.y;
p.angle = Math.atan2(dy, dx);
}
},
sortByAngle: function( points ){
points.sort(function(a, b) {
if (a.angle > b.angle) return 1;
else if (a.angle < b.angle) return -1;
return 0;
});
},
result:
Frankly, I would make it simpler.
Make sampling in one single hexagon. Just make bounding box with size (2s,2s cos(30)), sample (x,y) and reject it if it is outside the hexagon. Efficiency should be 3/4 (check hexagon area). Position this sampling hexagon at (0,0) such that sampling is very easy, and, what's more important, very TESTABLE
For each area maintain array of hexagon centers, say, with size N
Sample in two steps. First, sample integer 1...N and select what
hexagon in the area is about to be selected. Second, sample from your
(x,y) from step #1, from your single hexagon at (0,0). Last,
shift sampled (x,y) by randomly selected hexagon center
UPDATE
Actually, I believe there is a way to sample point (x,y) in a single hexagon with 100% efficiency without any rejection/acceptance. Look at picture above. Red is whole hexagon, and rectangular blue area is where you sample points. If sampled point is within red area you take it and move on. If it is not in the red and inside blue A triangle, you map it into black A' triangle. If point is not in the red but in the blue B triangle, you remap it into black B' triangle
Remapping is quite simple linear transformation.
Finally you have sampling with three random numbers as input (one used to select
destination hexagon, and two used to sample random point) and it will guaranteed to return random point somewhere in the desired area
UPDATE II
As noted by Denis Sheremet, better mapping would be A->B' and B->A'. Assuming hexagon center at (0,0), overall just two reflections - one over center and another over middle of the triangle
I implemented Severin Pappadeux's awesome answer in C++ (but should be trivially convertible to any other language):
// randA and randB must be in the range [0, 1]
static glm::vec2 SampleHexagon(float randA, float randB) {
// Algorithm based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/39262805/3841944 by user Severin Pappadeux
//
// Hexagon map:
// ___________________
// | /| |\ |
// | / | | \b'|
// | / a| |A \ |
// |/___| C |___\|
// |\ | | /|
// | \ b| |B / |
// | \ | | /a'|
// | \___________/___|
// | | | <- "startA"
// | | |<-->| <- "widthA"
// | | <- "startC"
// |<----------------->| "width"
//
// C = center part
// a, b = left (upper and lower) part
// A, B = right (upper and lower) part
// a' -> area that will be remapped to a
// b' -> area that will be remapped to b
// The algorithm is to:
// 1. Generate random points in the rectangle spanning C, A, B, b' and a'
// 2. Move all points in a' and b' into a and b
// 3. (Optional) Make hexagon regular
// 4. (Optional) Remap coordinates to range [-1, 1]
// Coordinates are in the range [0, 1]
const float width = 1;
const float widthC = width / 2;
const float widthA = (width - widthC) / 2;
const float startC = widthA;
const float startA = startC + widthC;
const float slope = .5f / widthA;
// 1. Remap x into the rectangle spanning C, A, B, b' and a'
float x = startC + randA * .75f;
float y = randB;
// 2. Move all points in a' and b' into a and b
// If we are in the last third (A, b', B and a')
if (startA < x) {
float localX = x - startA;
if (y > .5f) { // And the upper half of it (in A or b')
float localY = y - .5f;
if (localY > .5f - localX * slope) { // And above the diagonal
// Move the point so it is in the triangle to 'b'
x -= startA;
y -= .5f;
}
} else { // And the lower half of it (in B or a')
float localY = y;
if (localY < localX * slope) { // And we are below the diagonal
// Move the point so it is in the triangle to 'a'
x -= startA;
y += .5f;
}
}
}
// 3. Make to regular hexagon (currently the hexagon is too high, because we assumed width == height)
// Divide the hexagon into 6 regular triangles and use the Pythagorean theorem, and this calculation should be fairly obvious
float regularHexagonWidthToHeightRatio = std::sqrt(1.f*1.f - .5f*.5f);
y = (y - .5f) * regularHexagonWidthToHeightRatio + .5f; // Center around 0, scale, center to .5
// 4. Remap coordinates to -1 to 1 (optional)
x = x * 2 - 1;
y = y * 2 - 1;
return { x, y };
}
Again many thanks to Severin Pappadeux, upvote his answer.
Related
What I'm attempting to do
Loop through two axes and generating a shape with a width and height, either less or equal to the length of the nested for-loops, and calculate the distance from all positions to the center of that shape.
Main Issue(s)
How do I specify the width and height of an ellipse shape to draw using a nested for-loop with different dimensions to that ellipse?
For example a nested for-loop which goes for 0 to 45 in the X axis, and 0 to 100 in the Y axis but draws an ellipse with a width of 39 and a height of 90 - with the remaining difference used as padding (3 on either side, and 5 on top and bottom).
I have this half working using the EdgeOrInBounds function below, however I'm having trouble understanding why the values I'm using are giving the results they are.
Using a nested for-loop the same as above, but specifying an ellipse with a width of 30 and a height of 70 doesn't have the expected padding, it instead draws an ellipse with only one extra sprite surrounding all sides.
How do I calculate the distance from the center of the ellipse to the positions generated by the nested for-loop as a value between zero and one?
For example, any position outside the ellipse returns a value of zero and any position within the ellipse returns the distance scaled between zero and one from the center of the ellipse.
Similar to above, I have this half working as I can return a value of zero for all posiitons outside of the ellipse, but I do not understand how scale the distances for positions within the ellipse.
Bonus Issue(s)
I'm doing this on a platform where code isn't easily shareable and there are few built in functions, so I've had to create my own versions stolen from based on examples from the Nvidia developer site.
I have a basic understanding of some C# and JavaScript, but zero understanding of mathematical formulas.
Ellipse Function(s)
bool EdgeOrInBounds (Vector2 position) {
int x = ((int) Math.Pow (position.x - center.x, 2) / (int) Math.Pow (radius.x, 2));
int y = ((int) Math.Pow (position.y - center.y, 2) / (int) Math.Pow (radius.y, 2));
return (x + y <= 1);
}
Distance Function(s)
float distance (Vector2 position) {
return (sqrt (dot (centerPosition - position, centerPosition - position));
}
float dot (Vector2 a, Vector2 b) {
return (a.x * b.x + a.y * b.y);
}
float sqrt (float a) {
return (1.0 / pow (a, -0.5));
}
Variables
int mapWidth = 45;
int mapHeight = 100;
Vector2 radius = new Vector2 (mapWidth - 8, mapHeight - 4);
Vector2 center = new Vector2 (mapWidth / 2, mapHeight / 2);
Nested For Loops
for (int x = 0; x < width; x ++) {
for (int y = 0; y < height; y ++) {
// Store current position to reference in a minute
Vector2 position = new Vector2 (x, y);
// Check if position is within bounds or lies on the edge of the ellipse
if (EdgeOrInBounds (position)) {
// Calculate distance from center to current position
float dist = distance (position);
}
}
}
Example Image:
Closing Remarks
I know I haven't done a good job of explaining what I'm tring to achieve, so I'd like to apologize in advance, and I'd also like to thank anyone who reads this as any help would be very much appreciated.
Cheers.
To get color shade better under control, you could use an elliptic spiral, instead of a square grid traverse. Start out with the two radii, use X=R1 * Cos(angle) and Y=R2 * Sin(angle), where you gradually decrease R1 and R2 to zero. Your loop will use polar coordinates (angle,r), see below. You are then sure of the size of your "plot" and you won't need to test distances underways. It can probably do without any distance function for color scaling, but I'm not sure how to do that properly.. I have included a few options.
// The image is 440x240, I want ellipse in the center, margins 20 pix
// Parameters, dependent on size and shape of elllipse
Point pc = new Point(220,120); // pixel center
double r1=200; // radius 1 margin 2x20 on 440
double r2=100; // radius 2 margin 2x20 on 240
// Covering all pixels
int rmax = (int)Math.Max(r1,r2);
// scaling for color
var ravgmax = (r1+r2)/2.0;
// Find suitable loop counts
var nr = rmax; // number of radius steps in loop
var nh = 2*nr*Math.PI); // number of angles in loop
// Prepare initial loop displacements
var h=0.0;
var dr1 = r1/(nr*nh);
var dr2 = r2/(nr*nh);
var dh=(Math.PI*2.0)/nh;
// The loop
for (int i=0; i<nr; i++)
{
for (int j=0; j<(int)nh; j++)
{
var p = new PointF((float)(pc.X+r1*Math.Cos(h)),(float)(pc.Y+r2*Math.Sin(h)));
// vanilla shading
// int grayscale = 255 - (int)(255 * ((r1+r2)/2.0)/ravgmax );
// elliptical option without using distance, scale along axes
// grayscale = 255 - (int)(Math.Abs(p.X-pc.X)*255/200+Math.Abs((p.Y-pc.Y)*255/100)/2;
// "Distance grayscale" which is circular, not elliptical
int grayscale = (int)(255 * floatFDistance(p,pc)/rmax);
PlotF(p,grayscale); // you provide: plotpixel(PointF, int)
r1-=dr1; r2-=dr2;
h+=dh;
}
}
}
float floatFDistance(PointF p1, PointF p2)
{
double d1 = (p1.X - p2.X);
double d2 = (p1.Y - p2.Y);
return (float)(Math.Sqrt(d1 * d1 + d2 * d2));
}
I'm trying to create a 2d circle procedurally with uniform faces like so.
Normally, I would create it with a triangle fan structure, but I need faces to be roughly identical. I looked for examples, but I could only find "cube to sphere" examples. A compromise could be something similar to this :
Could you help me finding a way to draw this structure? I'd like to do it in C# but js or even pseudo code would do!
Thanks a lot
You got me interested with your question, and I think I've got the solution you were looking for. Here is how we can create a topology that you desired:
1) We start with a hexagon. Why hexagon and not other shape? Because hexagon is the only magic shape with its radius equal too the length of its side. We will call this radius R. We will now try to create a shape that resembles circle and is made of triangles with side length approximately R.
2) Now imagine some concentric circles, with radius R, 2R, 3R and so on - the more, the higher is the resolution.
3) Circle number 1 has radius R. We will now replace that circle with a hexagon with radius R.
4) We will now add more nodes on second circle to expand our hexagon. What is the circumference of circle number N? It is 2PiRN. Now we want to divide it into X edges of length approximately R. Hence X=2PiN, which is approximately 6N. So we will divide first circle into 6 edges (hexagon), second one into 12, then 18, 24 and so on.
5) Now we have lots of circles divided into edges. We now need to connect edges into triangles. How do we build triangles between circle N (outer) and N-1 (inner)? Outer circle has 6 more edges than the inner one. If they had identical number of vertices, we could connect them with quads. But they don't. So, we will still try to build quads, but for each N quads we build, we will need to add 1 triangle. Each quad uses 2 vertices from inner and 2 vertices from outer circle. Each triangle uses 2 vertices from the outer circle and only 1 from inner, thus compensating the excess of vertices.
6) And now at last, there is some tested sample code that does what you need. It will generate a circle with uniform topology, with center point at origin and radius of 1, divided into *resolution sub circles. It could use some minor performance optimization (that's out of scope for now), but all in all it should do the job.
using System.Collections.Generic;
using UnityEngine;
[RequireComponent(typeof(MeshFilter))]
public class UniformCirclePlane : MonoBehaviour {
public int resolution = 4;
// Use this for initialization
void Start() {
GetComponent<MeshFilter>().mesh = GenerateCircle(resolution);
}
// Update is called once per frame
void Update() {
}
// Get the index of point number 'x' in circle number 'c'
static int GetPointIndex(int c, int x) {
if (c < 0) return 0; // In case of center point
x = x % ((c + 1) * 6); // Make the point index circular
// Explanation: index = number of points in previous circles + central point + x
// hence: (0+1+2+...+c)*6+x+1 = ((c/2)*(c+1))*6+x+1 = 3*c*(c+1)+x+1
return (3 * c * (c + 1) + x + 1);
}
public static Mesh GenerateCircle(int res) {
float d = 1f / res;
var vtc = new List<Vector3>();
vtc.Add(Vector3.zero); // Start with only center point
var tris = new List<int>();
// First pass => build vertices
for (int circ = 0; circ < res; ++circ) {
float angleStep = (Mathf.PI * 2f) / ((circ + 1) * 6);
for (int point = 0; point < (circ + 1) * 6; ++point) {
vtc.Add(new Vector2(
Mathf.Cos(angleStep * point),
Mathf.Sin(angleStep * point)) * d * (circ + 1));
}
}
// Second pass => connect vertices into triangles
for (int circ = 0; circ < res; ++circ) {
for (int point = 0, other = 0; point < (circ + 1) * 6; ++point) {
if (point % (circ + 1) != 0) {
// Create 2 triangles
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ - 1, other + 1));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ - 1, other));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ, point));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ, point));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ, point + 1));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ - 1, other + 1));
++other;
} else {
// Create 1 inverse triange
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ, point));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ, point + 1));
tris.Add(GetPointIndex(circ - 1, other));
// Do not move to the next point in the smaller circle
}
}
}
// Create the mesh
var m = new Mesh();
m.SetVertices(vtc);
m.SetTriangles(tris, 0);
m.RecalculateNormals();
m.UploadMeshData(true);
return m;
}
}
Final Result:
I'm receiving all distances between a random number of points in a 2 dimensional coordinate system.
How can I visualize this as coordinates on a map in my browser?
In case there are many solutions I just want to see the first possible one that my algorithm can come up with.
So here's an extremely easy example:
PointCount = 3
Distances:
0-1 = 2
0-2 = 4
1-2 = 2
Does anyone know an easy way (existing solution/framework maybe) to do it using whatever is out there to make it easier to implement?
I was thinking maybe using the html canvas element for drawing, but I don't know how to create an algorithm that could come up with possible coordinates for those points.
The above example is simplified -
Real distance values could look like this:
(0) (1) (2) (3)
(0) 0 2344 3333 10000
(1) 0 3566 10333
(2) 0 12520
I'm not sure this is relevant for SO, but anyway...
The way to do this is quite simply to place the points one by one using the data:
Pick a random location for the first point (let's say it's 0,0).
The second point is on a circle with radius d(0,1) with the first point as its center, so you can pick any point on the circle. Let's pick (d(0,1),0).
The third point is at the intersection of a circle with radius d(0,2) and center point 1, and a circle with radius d(1,2) and center point 2. You will get either 0, 1, 2 or an infinity of solutions. If the data comes from real points, 0 shouldn't happen. 1 and infinity are edge cases, but you should still handle them. Pick any of the solutions.
The fourth point is at the intersection of 3 circles. Unless you're very unlucky (but you should account for it), there should be only one solution.
Continue like this until all points have been placed.
Note that this doesn't mean you'll get the exact locations of the original points: you can have any combination of a translation (the choice of your first point), rotation (the choice of your second point) and symmetry (the choice of your third point) making the difference.
A quick and dirty implementation (not handling quite a few cases, and tested very little):
function distance(p1, p2) {
return Math.sqrt(Math.pow(p2[0] - p1[0], 2) + Math.pow(p2[1] - p1[1], 2));
}
// adapted from https://stackoverflow.com/a/12221389/3527940
function intersection(x0, y0, r0, x1, y1, r1) {
var a, dx, dy, d, h, rx, ry;
var x2, y2;
/* dx and dy are the vertical and horizontal distances between
* the circle centers.
*/
dx = x1 - x0;
dy = y1 - y0;
/* Determine the straight-line distance between the centers. */
d = Math.sqrt((dy * dy) + (dx * dx));
/* Check for solvability. */
if (d > (r0 + r1)) {
/* no solution. circles do not intersect. */
return false;
}
if (d < Math.abs(r0 - r1)) {
/* no solution. one circle is contained in the other */
return false;
}
/* 'point 2' is the point where the line through the circle
* intersection points crosses the line between the circle
* centers.
*/
/* Determine the distance from point 0 to point 2. */
a = ((r0 * r0) - (r1 * r1) + (d * d)) / (2.0 * d);
/* Determine the coordinates of point 2. */
x2 = x0 + (dx * a / d);
y2 = y0 + (dy * a / d);
/* Determine the distance from point 2 to either of the
* intersection points.
*/
h = Math.sqrt((r0 * r0) - (a * a));
/* Now determine the offsets of the intersection points from
* point 2.
*/
rx = -dy * (h / d);
ry = dx * (h / d);
/* Determine the absolute intersection points. */
var xi = x2 + rx;
var xi_prime = x2 - rx;
var yi = y2 + ry;
var yi_prime = y2 - ry;
return [
[xi, yi],
[xi_prime, yi_prime]
];
}
function generateData(nbPoints) {
var i, j, k;
var originalPoints = [];
for (i = 0; i < nbPoints; i++) {
originalPoints.push([Math.random() * 20000 - 10000, Math.random() * 20000 - 10000]);
}
var data = [];
var distances;
for (i = 0; i < nbPoints; i++) {
distances = [];
for (j = 0; j < i; j++) {
distances.push(distance(originalPoints[i], originalPoints[j]));
}
data.push(distances);
}
//console.log("original points", originalPoints);
//console.log("distance data", data);
return data;
}
function findPointsForDistances(data, threshold) {
var points = [];
var solutions;
var solutions1, solutions2;
var point;
var i, j, k;
if (!threshold)
threshold = 0.01;
// First point, arbitrarily set at 0,0
points.push([0, 0]);
// Second point, arbitrarily set at d(0,1),0
points.push([data[1][0], 0]);
// Third point, intersection of two circles, pick any solution
solutions = intersection(
points[0][0], points[0][1], data[2][0],
points[1][0], points[1][1], data[2][1]);
//console.log("possible solutions for point 3", solutions);
points.push(solutions[0]);
//console.log("solution for points 1, 2 and 3", points);
found = true;
// Subsequent points, intersections of n-1 circles, use first two to find 2 solutions,
// the 3rd to pick one of the two
// then use others to check it's valid
for (i = 3; i < data.length; i++) {
// distances to points 1 and 2 give two circles and two possible solutions
solutions = intersection(
points[0][0], points[0][1], data[i][0],
points[1][0], points[1][1], data[i][1]);
//console.log("possible solutions for point " + (i + 1), solutions);
// try to find which solution is compatible with distance to point 3
found = false;
for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
if (Math.abs(distance(solutions[j], points[2]) - data[i][2]) <= threshold) {
point = solutions[j];
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found) {
console.log("could not find solution for point " + (i + 1));
console.log("distance data", data);
console.log("solution for points 1, 2 and 3", points);
console.log("possible solutions for point " + (i + 1), solutions);
console.log("distances to point 3",
distance(solutions[0], points[2]),
distance(solutions[1], points[2]),
data[i][2]
);
break;
}
// We have found a solution, we need to check it's valid
for (j = 3; j < i; j++) {
if (Math.abs(distance(point, points[j]) - data[i][j]) > threshold) {
console.log("Could not verify solution", point, "for point " + (i + 1) + " against distance to point " + (j + 1));
found = false;
break;
}
}
if (!found) {
console.log("stopping");
break;
}
points.push(point);
}
if (found) {
//console.log("complete solution", points);
return points;
}
}
console.log(findPointsForDistances([
[],
[2344],
[3333, 3566],
[10000, 10333, 12520],
]));
console.log(findPointsForDistances([
[],
[2],
[4, 2],
]));
console.log(findPointsForDistances([
[],
[4000],
[5000, 3000],
[3000, 5000, 4000]
]));
console.log(findPointsForDistances([
[],
[2928],
[4938, 3437],
[10557, 10726, 13535]
]));
var nbPoints, i;
for (nbPoints = 4; nbPoints < 8; nbPoints++) {
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
console.log(findPointsForDistances(generateData(nbPoints)));
}
}
Fiddle here: https://jsfiddle.net/jacquesc/82aqmpnb/15/
Minimum working example. Remember that in canvas coordinates, the y value is inverted but you could do something like:
y = canvasHeight - y
If you also have negative points then if would take a little bit of extra work. Also it may be helpful in that case to draw lines and tick marks to visualize the axis.
let canvas = document.getElementById("canvas");
let ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");
let scale = 10;
let radius = 10;
function point(x, y) {
ctx.fillRect(x*scale, y*scale, radius, radius);
}
// test
point(10, 15);
point(20, 8);
<html>
<body>
<canvas id="canvas" width=1000 height=1000></canvas>
</body>
</html>
There are plenty of libraries out there.
chartist.js is easy to use and responsive JavaS cript library. I used it last year for basic charts after trying many others but it was the only one that scaling easily in different screen sizes.
chartJS is another better looking library.
And you can use html5 canvas it's easy and fun but it will take time especially in scaling.
To scale and position, you should use the minimum and maximum values for x and y.
Good luck
I am trying to figure out a way to have a fixed scale for the:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond-square_algorithm
I see that the algorithm requires a power of 2 (+1) size of the array.
The problem I am having is that I would like to have the same heightmap produced regardless of the resolution. So if I have a resolution of 512 it would look the same as with the resolution 256 but just have less detail. I just can't figure out how to do this with.
My initial thought was to always create the heightmap in a certain dimension e.g. 1024 and downsample to the res I would like. Problem is I would like the upper resolution to be quite high (say 4096) and this severely reduces the performance at lower resolutions as we have to run the algo at the highest possible resolution.
Currently the algorithm is in javascript here is a snippet:
function Advanced() {
var adv = {},
res, max, heightmap, roughness;
adv.heightmap = function() {
// heightmap has one extra pixel this is ot remove it.
var hm = create2DArray(res-1, res-1);
for(var x = 0;x< res-1;x++) {
for(var y = 0;y< res-1;y++) {
hm[x][y] = heightmap[x][y];
}
}
return hm;
}
adv.get = function(x,y) {
if (x < 0 || x > max || y < 0 || y > max) return -1;
return heightmap[x][y];
}
adv.set = function(x,y,val) {
if(val < 0) {
val = 0;
}
heightmap[x][y] = val;
}
adv.divide = function(size) {
var x, y, half = size / 2;
var scale = roughness * size;
if (half < 1) return;
for (y = half; y < max; y += size) {
for (x = half; x < max; x += size) {
adv.square(x, y, half, Math.random() * scale * 2 - scale);
}
}
for (y = 0; y <= max; y += half) {
for (x = (y + half) % size; x <= max; x += size) {
adv.diamond(x, y, half, Math.random() * scale * 2 - scale);
}
}
adv.divide(size / 2);
}
adv.average = function(values) {
var valid = values.filter(function(val) {
return val !== -1;
});
var total = valid.reduce(function(sum, val) {
return sum + val;
}, 0);
return total / valid.length;
}
adv.square = function(x, y, size, offset) {
var ave = adv.average([
adv.get(x - size, y - size), // upper left
adv.get(x + size, y - size), // upper right
adv.get(x + size, y + size), // lower right
adv.get(x - size, y + size) // lower left
]);
adv.set(x, y, ave + offset);
}
adv.diamond = function(x, y, size, offset) {
var ave = adv.average([
adv.get(x, y - size), // top
adv.get(x + size, y), // right
adv.get(x, y + size), // bottom
adv.get(x - size, y) // left
]);
adv.set(x, y, Math.abs(ave + offset));
}
adv.generate = function(properties, resolution) {
Math.seedrandom(properties.seed);
res = resolution + 1;
max = res - 1;
heightmap = create2DArray(res, res);
roughness = properties.roughness;
adv.set(0, 0, max);
adv.set(max, 0, max / 2);
adv.set(max, max, 0);
adv.set(0, max, max / 2);
adv.divide(max);
}
function create2DArray(d1, d2) {
var x = new Array(d1),
i = 0,
j = 0;
for (i = 0; i < d1; i += 1) {
x[i] = new Array(d2);
}
for (i=0; i < d1; i += 1) {
for (j = 0; j < d2; j += 1) {
x[i][j] = 0;
}
}
return x;
}
return adv;
}
Anyone ever done this before ?
Not quite sure if I understand your question yet but I'll provide further clarification if I can.
You've described a case where you want a diamond-square heightmap with a resolution of 256 to be used at a size of 512 without scaling it up. I'll go through an example using a 2x2 heightmap to a "size" of 4x4.
A diamond-square heightmap is really a set of vertices rather than tiles or squares, so a heightmap with a size of 2x2 is really a set of 3x3 vertices as shown:
You could either render this using the heights of the corners, or you might turn it into a 2x2 set of squares by taking the average of the four surrounding points - really this is just the "square" step of the algorithm without the displacement step.
So in this case the "height" of the top-left square would be the average of the (0, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1) and (1, 0) points.
If you wanted to draw this at a higher resolution, you could split each square up into a smaller set of 4 squares, adjusting the average based on how close it is to each point.
So now the value of the top-left-most square would be a sample of the 4 sub-points around it or a sample of its position relative to the points around it. But really this is just the diamond square algorithm applied again without any displacement (no roughness) so you may as well apply the algorithm again and go to the larger size.
You've said that going to the size you wish to go to would be too much for the processor to handle, so you may want to go with this sampling approach on the smaller size. An efficient way would be to render the heightmap to a texture and sample from it and the position required.
Properly implemented diamond & square algorithm has the same first N steps regardless of map resolution so the only thing to ensure the same look is use of some specified seed for pseudo random generator.
To make this work you need:
set seed
allocate arrays and set base randomness magnitude
Diamond
Square
lower base randomness magnitude
loop #3 until lowest resolution hit
If you are not lowering the randomness magnitude properly then the lower recursion/iteration layers can override the shape of the result of the upper layers making this not work.
Here see how I do it just add the seed:
Diamond-square algorithm not working
see the line:
r=(r*220)>>8; if (r<2) r=2;
The r is the base randomness magnitude. The way you are lowering it will determine the shape of the result as you can see I am not dividing it by two but multiplying by 220/256 instead so the lower resolution has bigger bumps which suite my needs.
Now if you want to use non 2^x+1 resolutions then choose the closer bigger resolution and then scale down to make this work for them too. The scaling down should be done carefully to preserve them main grid points of the first few recursion/iteration steps or use bi-cubic ...
If you're interested take a look on more up to date generator based on the linked one:
Diamond&Square Island generator
I'm trying to find the row, column in a 2d isometric grid of a screen space point (x, y)
Now I pretty much know what I need to do which is find the length of the vectors in red in the pictures above and then compare it to the length of the vector that represent the bounds of the grid (which is represented by the black vectors)
Now I asked for help over at mathematics stack exchange to get the equation for figuring out what the parallel vectors are of a point x,y compared to the black boundary vectors. Link here Length of Perpendicular/Parallel Vectors
but im having trouble converting this to a function
Ideally i need enough of a function to get the length of both red vectors from three sets of points, the x,y of the end of the 2 black vectors and the point at the end of the red vectors.
Any language is fine but ideally javascript
What you need is a base transformation:
Suppose the coordinates of the first black vector are (x1, x2) and the coordinates of the second vector are (y1, y2).
Therefore, finding the red vectors that get at a point (z1, z2) is equivalent to solving the following linear system:
x1*r1 + y1*r2 = z1
x2*r1 + y2*r2 = z2
or in matrix form:
A x = b
/x1 y1\ |r1| = |z1|
\x2 y2/ |r2| |z2|
x = inverse(A)*b
For example, lets have the black vector be (2, 1) and (2, -1). The corresponding matrix A will be
2 2
1 -1
and its inverse will be
1/4 1/2
1/4 -1/2
So a point (x, y) in the original coordinates will be able to be represened in the alternate base, bia the following formula:
(x, y) = (1/4 * x + 1/2 * y)*(2,1) + (1/4 * x -1/2 * y)*(2, -1)
What exactly is the point of doing it like this? Any isometric grid you display usually contains cells of equal size, so you can skip all the vector math and simply do something like:
var xStep = 50,
yStep = 30, // roughly matches your image
pointX = 2*xStep,
pointY = 0;
Basically the points on any isometric grid fall onto the intersections of a non-isometric grid. Isometric grid controller:
screenPositionToIsoXY : function(o, w, h){
var sX = ((((o.x - this.canvas.xPosition) - this.screenOffsetX) / this.unitWidth ) * 2) >> 0,
sY = ((((o.y - this.canvas.yPosition) - this.screenOffsetY) / this.unitHeight) * 2) >> 0,
isoX = ((sX + sY - this.cols) / 2) >> 0,
isoY = (((-1 + this.cols) - (sX - sY)) / 2) >> 0;
// isoX = ((sX + sY) / isoGrid.width) - 1
// isoY = ((-2 + isoGrid.width) - sX - sY) / 2
return $.extend(o, {
isoX : Math.constrain(isoX, 0, this.cols - (w||0)),
isoY : Math.constrain(isoY, 0, this.rows - (h||0))
});
},
// ...
isoToUnitGrid : function(isoX, isoY){
var offset = this.grid.offset(),
isoX = $.uD(isoX) ? this.isoX : isoX,
isoY = $.uD(isoY) ? this.isoY : isoY;
return {
x : (offset.x + (this.grid.unitWidth / 2) * (this.grid.rows - this.isoWidth + isoX - isoY)) >> 0,
y : (offset.y + (this.grid.unitHeight / 2) * (isoX + isoY)) >> 0
};
},
Okay so with the help of other answers (sorry guys neither quite provided the answer i was after)
I present my function for finding the grid position on an iso 2d grid using a world x,y coordinate where the world x,y is an offset screen space coord.
WorldPosToGridPos: function(iPosX, iPosY){
var d = (this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.x * this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.y) - (this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.y * this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.x);
var a = ((iPosX * this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.y) - (this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.x * iPosY)) / d;
var b = ((this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.x * iPosY) - (iPosX * this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.y)) / d;
var cParaUpperVec = new Vector2(a * this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.x, a * this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.y);
var cParaLowerVec = new Vector2(b * this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.x, b * this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.y);
var iGridWidth = 40;
var iGridHeight = 40;
var iGridX = Math.floor((cParaLowerVec.length() / this.mcBoundaryVectors.lower.length()) * iGridWidth);
var iGridY = Math.floor((cParaUpperVec.length() / this.mcBoundaryVectors.upper.length()) * iGridHeight);
return {gridX: iGridX, gridY: iGridY};
},
The first line is best done once in an init function or similar to save doing the same calculation over and over, I just included it for completeness.
The mcBoundaryVectors are two vectors defining the outer limits of the x and y axis of the isometric grid (The black vectors shown in the picture above).
Hope this helps anyone else in the future