I have the following code using D3 library for example:
<html>
<body>
<script src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.2.0.min.js"></script>
<script src="http://d3js.org/d3.v3.min.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script>
var points = [{x: 100, y:100}, {x: 200, y:200}, {x: 300, y:300}, {x: 400, y:400}, {x: 500, y:500}, {x: 600, y:600}, {x: 700, y:700}];
var width = 1000;
var height = 1000;
var racoonWidth = 100;
var racoonHeight = 100;
var svg = d3.select("body").append("svg").attr({width: width, height: height});
var g = svg.append("g");
var racoons = g.selectAll("svg").data(points).enter().append("svg:image")
.attr({"xlink:href": "http://www.clker.com/cliparts/1/4/5/a/1331068897296558865Sitting%20Racoon.svg",
width: racoonWidth, height: racoonHeight, x: function(d){return d.x}, y: function(d){return d.y}});
</script>
</body>
</html>
Which draws 7 images (racoon images) diagonally on the page - but in rael life they will be randomly placed in the page.
I want to draw lines between pairs of images, without any line intersect with any of the other images (if possible). It is important that the calculation will not be done according to the given example only, but for every scattering possible.
The lines don't have to be straight, though it should be nice to look, so rounded lines are preferred.
edit:
To make it easier - Say I want to draw an arrow between two images which were clicked one after another (An arrow that goes from the first image clicked to the second), and lets say I clicked the first image and then the last - A simple straight line will go across all other images. Instead, I would like to draw a round line that will go above/under all the other images and connect the two.
I came across a library called vivus.js which draws paths using SVG, maybe I can find my answers within it?
Is there an elegant way to do so within D3 or Vivus.js libraries?
You mean Voronoi cells for the images?
If the images have size, there isn't necessarily an infinite line
that separates two images but doesn't touch any of the other
images, even if you constrain the random images never to overlap.
Voronoi digrams for non-points cells are a bit tricky to
calculate. But you can get a good enough answer easily enough.
For each image, take the nearest image, and draw a line
perpendicular to the line between them (however defined)
such that it doesn't intersect either image. Then eliminate
any images that lie the same side of that line, and
take the next nearest, until no points are left. You now
have either a polygon enclosing the image, or, if it is an edge
image, a half-open space.
Now put the point into a "done" list, with its neighbours and
separation lines attached.
Move to the next point. If it has any "done" neighbours,
eliminate all points on the wrong side of the lines. Then
repeat the process, until all the points are done.
Related
I have been developing a program which includes some sort of genetic algorithm. For my program, let's say there is a population of 200 units, and each unit can be in 5 different states. Inititlly, they all start at state 0, and they can randomly jump to states 1 to 4, and influence other units to jump as well. This way, the more units are on state 2, the more units will jump to state 2 and so on. I have these units moving randomly inside my canvas, bouncing off the walls when they hit them.
The one thing I want to do now is visualize the evolution on a chart, and for that I would like to have the canvas with the units jumping states on one side and the chart next to it, dynamically representing the percentage of units in state 0, 1, 2... simultaneously. I will presumably have no problem in coding the chart, however I cannot find a way of displaying it outside the canvas or without altering it.
Just in case, I am programming in Atom and have mostly used p5 libraries.
Any ideas??
You have 2 options:
Make a second canvas (Like enhzflep said), but this might be complicated for you, becuase you will not have access to P5.js drawing tools on that second canvas, look at this:
(On your first canvas)
fill(255,0,0)
rect(50,50,50,50);
To make and draw to a second canvas:
const canvas = document.createElement('canvas');
document.body.appendChild(canvas);
//deal with positioning, scaling, and other stuff (comment if you need help with that)
...
const c = canvas.getContext('2d');
c.fillStyle = "rgb(255,0,0)";
c.fillRect(50,50,50,50);
(See, lots of effort)
Or, you can just use your first canvas, and partition a section off that is dedicated to the graph
createCanvas(600 + graphWidth, 600);
//Wherever your bouncing off walls code is
//for the right side of the screen
if(this.x > width - graphWidth){
bounce();
}
//that leaves you a graphWidth by 600 rectangle for you to draw you graph
The second option is much easier to read and will save you some headaches (I would use that).
My code of svg.js use rotate action and move action, but two results dont have the same center coordinate
Here is my code
<body>
<div id="drawing"></div>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/svg.js/2.6.6/svg.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var draw = SVG('drawing')
var group_1 = draw.group()
var group_2 = draw.group()
var rect_1 = group_1.rect(50, 20).fill('#f06').center(50, 50)
var rect_2 = group_2.rect(50, 20).fill('#f09').center(50, 50)
rect_1.animate(1000).rotate(45).after(function(){
group_1.animate(1000).center(100, 100)})
group_2.animate(1000).center(100, 100)
</script>
</body>
In SVG groups needs to be understood as a grouping of elements. Basically the same as in photohop. You can select multiple elements and rotate or scale them at once.
That in turn means that groups do not have geometry on its own. It fully depends on the content where the group is visible on the screen (x, y) or how bif it is (with/height).
Thats the reason, why you cannot move a group. You only can transform it. To keep the api simple, svg.js gives you the handy move and center method which - under the hood - translate the group.
In your example, you move the group after you rotated it. But you do it with an absolute transformation. That means svg.js tries to incooperate the movement into the already present rotation. This maths does not goes off well sometimes.
To fix your problem you have to use relative transformations instead.
Which means the movement is ON TOP of the rotation. That also means that you have to figure out by how much you wanna move the group.
We are currently working on version 3 of svg.js which simplifies this transformation business alot. So I hope the final solution will be there soon
I am building a tool which will ultimately leverage the Google Maps API v3 to build up an area on a map constructed of squares of a fixed edge length (e.g. 10 metres) on a fixed “grid” system (e.g., co-ordinates spaced out every 0.0001 latlong units starting at earth’s 0,0 point).
I have written code where users can click on an area on the map and the code draws an outline and fill of the square where it's found. Users can click on other adjacent locations to that square to build up a larger and larger “blocky” polygon, and can click on individual squares to delete them. I have tested all this myself in both HTML5 canvas/JavaScript as well as the Google Maps API.
Now I want to write code that removes any internal edges/vertices so that it only draws the outermost boundaries of this polygon so that it is actually drawn as one large polygon, rather than a collection of squares. Think of it this way: even though we know countries like Australia, USA etc., are comprised of a number of states, when we draw the border around the country we are not usually interested in the borders of all the states and can delete those lines in between and just draw the outer boundary. This is the same thing I want to accomplish, just using a grid of squares rather than complex polygons.
My current code is here:
https://jsfiddle.net/wyxcvmdf/14/
HTML:
<canvas id="myCanvas" width="500" height="250" style="border:1px solid #000000;"></canvas>
<!--etc.-->
JavaScript:
// don't forget to set load type in jsfiddle to no wrap in <body>
// define the global variable and some helper variables to make the code shorter
var gv = {};
gv.o = function(id) {
return document.getElementById(id)
};
gv.i = 'innerHTML';
// etc.
A couple of explanatory notes about my code:
• The “origin point” for every square is the vertex at the bottom left corner of that square. No particular reason for this.
• The “drawing direction” in terms of how HTML5 canvas draws the outline is counter-clockwise from the origin point. Again, no particular reason for this.
• You can’t “click” to add squares yet as it’s just a proof of concept, so you add squares by entering the x and y co-ordinates in the relevant text entry boxes
The use cases/tests required to prove my code which I have thought of are:
Square added to polygon with 1 duplicate vertex (working)
Square added to polygon with 2 and 3 duplicate vertices in all cases: adjacent edges, non-adjacent edges, non-sequential vertices (currently working for first case only)
Square added to polygon with 4 duplicate vertices in all cases: plugging a hole, plugging part of a hole, joining multiple polygons (currently working for first case only)
Square removed from polygon with 1 duplicate vertex in cases described above (not developed yet, but should effectively be “reverse” of addition code)
Square removed from polygon with 2 and 3 duplicate vertices in cases described above (not developed yet, but should effectively be “reverse” of addition code)
Square removed from polygon with 4 duplicate vertices in cases described above (not developed yet, but should effectively be “reverse” of addition code)
Square addition/removal on outside of polygon with multiple inner borders, i.e., holes (not developed yet, may be tricky)
Square addition/removal on inside of polygon with multiple inner borders, i.e., holes (not developed yet, may be tricky)
Note 1: My use of “squares”, “edge” etc., instead of "polygons", etc., is just for simplicity of explanation.
Note 2: I have performed quite a bit of research on similar problems and possible solutions but haven’t really found anything which will meet my needs. The research I’ve done is on:
Travelling Salesman Problem. However, this is not about optimising a path – it is about making sure a path is “drawable” and hence heading in one direction. Overlapping vertices are totally fine as long as the resulting shape looks like what a user would expect it to.
Convex hull algorithm. Not really applicable as the hull could be convex, concave or even non-contiguous! Also, I think that by simplifying to a grid system I have removed the problem of having many scattered vertices where you need to determine how far they are from a centre point, use trigonometry etc.
Concave hull solutions. This gets closer to solving my problem, however what I have seen is that there are many plug-ins for commercial tools (e.g. ArcGIS) to do this, but no generic code (irrespective of programming language) which covers all of my use cases.
Tile-based games. You would think that any tile-based game which requires drawing boundaries around tiles (e.g. A player’s territory in a real-time strategy game) would have solved this problem, but not from what I can see.
You say "draw" rather than calculate the outside vertices, so ...
You can use clipping plus compositing to "hollow out" your set of squares.
Assume you have determined that these squares are inside your desired boundary (either partially or fully inside):
var aInside=[ {x:60,y:60},{x:80,y:60},{x:40,y:60},{x:60,y:40},{x:60,y:80} ];
An illustration of squares that are inside your desired boundary.
Then, to draw just the boundary of the set of squares, you can:
Stroke (not fill) each of your inside squares: context.rect
Restrict futher drawing to the stroked rects: context.clip
Cause all new drawing to erase existing pixels: context.globalCompositeOperation = 'destination-out'
Fill the entire canvas with a solid color: context.fillRect(0,0,canvas.width,canvas.height).
The trick: Stroking a rectangle actually draws a stroke half-inside & half-outside the rectangle, so step#4 will erase the inside of the set of rectangles but (importantly!) will leave the half outside stroke.
So you end up with this:
Here's example code and a Demo:
var canvas=document.getElementById("canvas");
var ctx=canvas.getContext("2d");
var aInside=[ {x:60,y:60},{x:80,y:60},{x:40,y:60},{x:60,y:40},{x:60,y:80} ];
// stroke all inside squares
ctx.save();
ctx.beginPath();
for(var i=0;i<aInside.length;i++){
var s=aInside[i];
ctx.rect(s.x,s.y,20,20);
}
ctx.stroke();
// clip to cause all new drawing to be inside the stroked squares
ctx.clip();
// set compositing to use new drawings to "erase" existing drawings
ctx.globalCompositeOperation='destination-out';
// Fill (===erase!) the entire canvas
// Clipping causes only the clipping area to be erased
// so the inside of the rects set is "hollowed out"
ctx.fillRect(0,0,canvas.width,canvas.height);
ctx.restore();
body{ background-color: ivory; }
#canvas{border:1px solid red; }
<canvas id="canvas" width=150 height=150></canvas>
An Algorithmic Note: If you want a set of the surviving vertices rather than a drawing, you can modify the Marching Squares Algorithm to return only the inflection points. Those inflection points are the vertices of your outside boundary.
This method addresses only drawing/appearance - it does not produce any new polygons. But it allow you to use a collection of polygons (any shape, here rectangles) and merge them visually to produce a merged outline. I base this answer on one of my earlier answers, but modified and adopted to fit the scenario here:
Draw all the rectangles as solids
Re-draw them offset around all edges and corners extruded to the thickness you want
Redraw the original rectangles but with global composite mode set to destination-outand centered on top
There are a few steps, but it works pretty fast.
A couple of notes:
If you have an existing background it would be necessary to use an off-screen canvas as a temporary stage. Not shown here, though the steps would be the same except that you would do these steps on the off-screen context and at the end you would copy the content from the off-screen canvas on top of the existing content of your display canvas.
If you have a lot of rectangles it can be optimized by drawing each single rectangle to a separate off-screen canvas without redrawing anything else. Then you just use this off-screen canvas as a source when you do the extrusion process shown below (see link above for example, just replace image with off-screen canvas itself as source).
It can be further optimized by checking if a rectangle is embedded and if so remove it from the collection.
Demo
var ctx = c.getContext("2d"),
rw = 50, rh = 50, // some demo size
rectangles = []; // rectangle collection
function render(ctx) {
ctx.clearRect(0, 0, ctx.canvas.width, ctx.canvas.height);
ctx.fillStyle = "#a00";
ctx.globalCompositeOperation = "source-over"; // draw using standard mode3
// we will draw the same rects on top of each other eight times
// this will extrude the edge so we can in the next step punch a
// hole in the drawing and leave only the extrusion -
// offset array (x,y) pairs
var i, d = 2, // d = number of pixels to offset
offsets = [-d, -d, 0, -d, d, -d, d, 0, d, d, 0, d, -d, d, -d, 0];
for(i = 0; i < offsets.length; i += 2) {
ctx.setTransform(1,0,0,1, offsets[i], offsets[i+1]);
drawRects()
}
// punch hole in the center
ctx.setTransform(1,0,0,1,0,0); // reset transformatons
ctx.globalCompositeOperation = "destination-out"; // "erase" mode
drawRects(); // draw a final time, wo/ extrusion
function drawRects() {
ctx.beginPath();
rectangles.forEach(function(r) {
ctx.rect(r.x, r.y, r.w, r.h)
}); // loop through collection and draw
ctx.fill()
}
}
// demo stuff --
c.onclick = function(e) {
var r = this.getBoundingClientRect(), // for demo, get mouse position
x = e.clientX - r.left,
y = e.clientY - r.top;
// add rectangle to list
rectangles.push({ // generate a rect. from center
x: x - rw*0.5,
y: y - rh*0.5,
w: rw,
h: rh
});
render(ctx); // the key process
};
canvas {border:1px solid #000}
Click on the canvas below to place rectangles:<br>
<canvas width=600 height=600 id=c></canvas>
I'm not very familiar working with svgs in js but here is something that is definitely strange.
I'm having an arrow and then a path that is supposed to fill that arrow to a certain extend. looks like this:
Now my aim is to be able to scale the white part but it should still stay inside that arrow.
Now the weird thing is that I cannot figure out how move the white part back into the right place. I've tried different attempts.
here is my current code (it works for scaleFactor 1 but not for any other):
var draw = SVG('arrow').size(500, 500);
var arrowPath=draw.polyline('10,243.495 202.918,15.482 397.199,245.107').fill('none').stroke({ width: 20 });
var arrow=draw.group();
arrow.add(arrowPath.clone());
var scaleFactor=0.5;
var fillArrow=draw.path('M357.669,198.387c-41.747,35.357-95.759,56.678-154.751,56.678c-58.991,0-113.003-21.32-154.75-56.676l154.75-182.907 L357.669,198.387z');
fillArrow.fill('#ffffee');
var moveX=(arrowPath.width()/2-fillArrow.width()/2)/scaleFactor+9.5;
console.log(moveX);
fillArrow.center(arrowPath.cx(), arrowPath.cy()).scale(scaleFactor);
//another attempt was
fillArrow.move(moveX,0);
When you are scaling, rotating and translating in SVG you are doing coordinate transforms. That is, you are actually not changing the object you are drawing but the coordinate system that you are drawing the object in. Think of it as pixel has a certain size on your screen, and if your do svgObject.scale(0.5) the pixel becomes half the size.
So if you draw a square by path('M10,10 L20,10 L20,20 L10,20 z') and then apply scale(0.5) it will look like you have drawn a path that looks like path('M5,5 L10,5 L10,10 L5,10 Z')
This might sound strange at first but, but alot of geometrical calculations becomes much simpler when you can do this.
You want to scale around the tip of the arrow (make sure that does not move). Then you should place that point in the origo (0,0) and draw the object around that point. Do that in a group. Because then you can translate the group coordinate system to the correct position.
var draw = SVG('arrow').size(600, 600);
// create a group
var arrow = draw.group();
// Draw the arrow path in the group
// I have placed the "tip" of the arrow in (0,0)
var arrowPath = arrow.polyline('-250,250 0,0 250,250').fill('none').stroke({
width: 20
});
// Draw the fill arrow in the group. Again, the point
// I which to scale around is placed at (0,0)
var fillArrow = arrow.path('M0,0L150,150,-150,150z').fill('#ffffee');
// Move the group to the position we like to display it in the SVG
arrow.move(260, 20);
var scaleFactor = 0.5
fillArrow.scale(scaleFactor);
And here is a working example where you can test and change the scale factor.
http://jsfiddle.net/ZmGQk/1/
And here is a good explanation on how the translate, rotate and scale works.
http://commons.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/SVG_Essentials/Transforming_the_Coordinate_System
I'm using canvas for a project and I have a number of elements that I'm skewing. I'm only skewing on the y value and just want to know what the new width of the image is after skewing (so I can align it with another canvas element). Check out the code below to see what I mean
ctx.save();
//skew the context
ctx.transform(1,0,1.3,0,0,0);
//draw two images with different heights/widths
ctx.drawImage(image,0,0,42,60);
ctx.drawImage(image,0,0,32,25);
The goal would be to know that the 42 by 60 image was now a X by 60 image so I could do some translating before drawing it at 0,0. It's easy enough to measure each image individually, but I have different skew values and heights/widths throughout the project that need to be align. Currently I use this code (works decently for images between 25 and 42 widths):
var skewModifier = imageWidth*(8/6)+(19/3);
var skewAmount = 1.3; //this is dynamic in my app
var width = (skewModifier*skewAmount)+imageWidth;
As images get wider though this formula quickly falls apart (I think it's a sloping formula not a straight value like this one). Any ideas on what canvas does for skews?
You should be able to derive it mathematically. I believe:
Math.atan(skewAmount) is the angle, in radians, that something is skewed with respect to the origin.
So 1.3 would skew the object by 0.915 radians or 52 degrees.
So here's a red unskewed object next to the same object skewed (painted green). So you have a right triangle:
We know the origin angle (0.915 rads) and we know the adjacent side length, which is 60 and 25 for your two images. (red's height).
The hypotenuse is the long side thats being skewed.
And the opposite side is the triangle bottom - how much its been skewed!
Tangent gets us opposite / adjacent if I recall, so for the first one:
tan(0.915) = opposite / 60, solving for the opposite in JavaScript code we have:
opposite = Math.tan(0.915)*60
So the bottom side of the skewed object starts about 77 pixels away from the origin. Lets check our work in the canvas:
http://jsfiddle.net/LBzUt/
Looks good to me!
The triangle in question of course is the canvas origin, that black dot I painted, and the bottom-left of the red rectangle, which is the original position that we're searching for before skewing.
That was a bit of a haphazard explanation. Any questions?
Taking Simon's fiddle example one step further, so you can simply enter the degrees:
Here's the fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/LBzUt/33/