Why does my parallel projection appear inverted? - c

I have the following parallel projection (Row major):
Before I apply the projection I use the following matrix to apply a transformation on the original points:
EDIT correct MATRIX:Matrix
Where a is z rotation,b is y rotation and g is x rotation and s scales my wireframe height.
And it is giving me the following output:
When in reality it should be giving me this (image not centered):
n is 0.1
and f is 100
The origin is in the middle of the wireframe and the 42 wireframe height is in the +z direction.
My matrix multiplication:
typedef struct s_point
{
float x;
float y;
float z;
int c; //color
} t_point;
void multiply_matrix_vector(t_point *i, t_point *o, t_pmatrix *m)
{
float w;
o->x = i->x * m->m[0][0] + i->y * m->m[1][0] + i->z * m->m[2][0] + m->m[3][0];
o->y = i->x * m->m[0][1] + i->y * m->m[1][1] + i->z * m->m[2][1] + m->m[3][1];
o->z = i->x * m->m[0][2] + i->y * m->m[1][2] + i->z * m->m[2][2] + m->m[3][2];
w = i->x * m->m[0][3] + i->y * m->m[1][3] + i->z * m->m[2][3] + m->m[3][3];
if (w != 0.0f)
{
o->x /= w;
o->y /= w;
o->z /= w;
}
o->c = i->c;
}
What am I doing wrong?

I remembered that I was having a hard time with matrix multiplication before and that probably I might had screwed a sign or a trigonometric function. I double checked everything and but all was ok. Still the result was flipped on the y axis so what I did was this:
Matrix
On the first matrix at [1][1] I just changed the 1 for -1
Matrices are tricky because the multiplication order matters more than one would think

Related

How to print out a hollow circle in c using just characters/symbols

Given the radius of the circle by the user, the program should print out the circle using the equation (x^2+y^2=r^2).
It works but I don't get something:
Why the points of the circle are so few, is there a way to make more points?
Why it looks more like an ellipse/oval?
code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void display(int r){
int x,y;
// x and y representing coordinates on an imaginary cartisian plane
for(x=-r;x<=r;x++)
{
printf("\t\t\t");//some tabs to make it kinda "centered"
for(y=-r;y<=r;y++)
{
/*if the coordinate:(x,y) is a point of the equation x^2+y^2=r^2 prints the char:*, if
not leaves that space empty*/
if( x*x+y*y == r*r)
printf("*");
else
printf(" ");
}
printf("\n");
}
}
int main(){
int r;
printf("Enter radius:");
scanf("%d",&r);
display(r);
return 0;
}
why the points of the circle are so few, is there a way to make more points?
The reason is that you cannot represent the fractional part, you are handling integers and chars in a terminal. You could potentially multiply r by 4 (careful with overflow) and decrease the fontSize of your terminal to achieve this result.
why it looks more like an ellipse/oval?
Characters in terminal have higher height than width. The reason is to comfortably be able to read them and might also have to do with 16/9 resolution.
You could again have the desired ouput by adjusting your equation... but at this point you might want to just use a graphic library! Unless you are up to some ASCII art...
_____ // I used 4 dash horizontally and 3 vertically.
_ _
_____
The condition x*x + y*y == r*r is only satisfied when x, y and r describe the side lengths of a right-angled triangle. For integers, only "Pythagorean triples" such as 3,4,5 and 5,12,13, etc. satisfy that condition.
More points can be plotted by allowing x*x + y*y to fall within a range centered about r*r, for example, between (r-½)² and (r+½)².
Since (r-½)² = r²-r+¼, and (r+½)² = r²+r+¼, we can ignore the ¼ for simplicity and use the range r*r-r to r*r+r.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void display(int r){
int x,y;
int xsq, ysq;
int rsq = r*r;
// x and y representing coordinates on an imaginary cartisian plane
for(x=-r;x<=r;x++)
{
xsq = x*x;
printf("\t\t\t");//some tabs to make it kinda "centered"
for(y=-r;y<=r;y++)
{
/*if the coordinate:(x,y) is a point of the equation x^2+y^2=r^2 prints the char:*, if
not leaves that space empty*/
int ysq = y*y;
int dsq = xsq + ysq;
if( dsq > rsq - r && dsq < rsq + r)
printf("*");
else
printf(" ");
}
printf("\n");
}
}
int main(){
int r;
printf("Enter radius:");
scanf("%d",&r);
display(r);
return 0;
}
Input/output:
$ circle
Enter radius:10
*******
** **
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
** **
*******
To account for the neglected ¼ from the expansion of (r-½)² and (r+½)², the condition could be changed from dsq > rsq - r && dsq < rsq + r to dsq > rsq - r && dsq <= rsq + r. That will change the output slightly for some radii.
The circle looks stretched because the font uses a non-square, rectangular grid.
Firstly the characters by default have aspect ratio 1:2 so to avoid having oval shape you have to print 2 characters per point.
And also to fill the gaps between the points you have to interpolate this gaps
here is a simple solution:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void display(int r)
{
int x, y;
// x and y representing coordinates on an imaginary cartisian plane
for (x = -r; x <= r; x++)
{
printf("\t\t\t"); //some tabs to make it kinda "centered"
for (y = -r; y <= r; y++)
{
if (abs(x * x + y * y - r * r) < r - 1)
printf("**");
else
printf("--");
}
printf("\n");
}
for (x = -r; x <= r; x++)
{
printf("\t\t\t"); //some tabs to make it kinda "centered"
for (y = -r; y <= r; y++)
{
printf("%s%d", (abs(x * x + y * y - r * r) > 10 ? " " : " "), abs(x * x + y * y - r * r));
}
printf("\n");
}
}
int main()
{
int r;
printf("Enter radius:");
scanf("%d", &r);
display(r);
return 0;
}
Enter radius:6
**********
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
** **
**********

I can't tell if this rotation function is working as expected

So I derived a rotation function like this:
I want to rotate (a, b, c) around the x axis
the value of a will not change
this is equivalent to rotating (b, c) around the origin in a 2d map
for a 2d map in polar coordinates, rotating d degrees is as simple as:
θ = θ + d
for a point P(x, y), x = Rcos(θ) and y = Rsin(θ)
so let Q be the point after rotation, then Q = (Rcos(θ + d), Rsin(θ + d))
since R2 = x2 + y2 and θ = arctan(y/x):
Q = (sqrt(x2 + y2) * cos(arctan(y/x) + d, sqrt(x2 + y2) * sin(arctan(y/x) + d)
I then made a C function that given a coordinate: a and rot_amount (usually 1) it would rotate my coordinate for me.
static void xrotate_coor(t_coor *a, int rot_amount)
{
double d;
double e;
d = a->y;
e = a->z;
if (e == 0 && d == 0)
return ;
if (d == 0)
{
a->y = sqrt(d * d + e * e) * cos(atan(INFIN) + rot_amount * M_PI / 50);
a->z = sqrt(d * d + e * e) * sin(atan(INFIN) + rot_amount * M_PI / 50);
return ;
}
a->y = sqrt(d * d + e * e) * cos(atan(e / d) + rot_amount * M_PI / 50);
a->z = sqrt(d * d + e * e) * sin(atan(e / d) + rot_amount * M_PI / 50);
}
INFIN is a macro I set to 999999.
I am not sure if it is correct though since using this formula the shape I am rotating is getting deformed so I feel like there is a flaw in my logic somewhere...
You are experiencing the accumulation of errors in the calculations. This is caused by the nature of how numbers are represented in computers.
The typical way to handle this problem in computer graphics is to keep the object's coordinates fixed and translate them to the position required for the frame being rendered. In your case, this would mean that rather than progressively rotating the object, leave the object in its original position and simply calculate the translation to the current angle around the X-axis based on where it should currently be displayed.
In other words, if you are translating 360 degrees total 20 degrees at a time, display the translated coordinates at 20 degrees in the first iteration and the translated coordinates at 40 degrees in the second iteration rather than actually translating 20 degrees each time.
... the shape I am rotating is getting deformed ...
atan(e / d) loses the 4 quadrant nature of a->y, a->z;. Consider that with OP's code, if the y,z are negated, the same result ensues. #Nominal Animal
d = -(a->y);
e = -(a->z);
...
atan(e / d)
Instead use a 4 quadrant arctangent.
double atan2(double y, double x);
The atan2 functions compute the value of the arc tangent of y/x, using the signs of both arguments to determine the quadrant of the return value. A domain error may occur if both arguments are zero.
Other suggested improvements below too.
#include <math.h>
static void xrotate_coor(t_coor *a, int rot_amount) {
double d = a->y;
double e = a->z;
double r = hypot(d, e); // vs. sqrt(d * d + e * e)
if (r) {
double angle = atan2(e, d);
angle += rot_amount * (M_PI / 50);
a->y = r * cos(angle);
a->z = r * sin(angle);
}
}

How to generate a set of points that are equidistant from each other and lie on a circle

I am trying to generate an array of n points that are equidistant from each other and lie on a circle in C. Basically, I need to be able to pass a function the number of points that I would like to generate and get back an array of points.
It's been a really long time since I've done C/C++, so I've had a stab at this more to see how I got on with it, but here's some code that will calculate the points for you. (It's a VS2010 console application)
// CirclePoints.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include "stdio.h"
#include "math.h"
int _tmain()
{
int points = 8;
double radius = 100;
double step = ((3.14159265 * 2) / points);
double x, y, current = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < points; i++)
{
x = sin(current) * radius;
y = cos(current) * radius;
printf("point: %d x:%lf y:%lf\n", i, x, y);
current += step;
}
return 0;
}
Try something like this:
void make_circle(float *output, size_t num, float radius)
{
size_t i;
for(i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
const float angle = 2 * M_PI * i / num;
*output++ = radius * cos(angle);
*output++ = radius * sin(angle);
}
}
This is untested, there might be an off-by-one hiding in the angle step calculation but it should be close.
This assumes I understood the question correctly, of course.
UPDATE: Redid the angle computation to not be incrementing, to reduce float precision loss due to repeated addition.
Here's a solution, somewhat optimized, untested. Error can accumulate, but using double rather than float probably more than makes up for it except with extremely large values of n.
void make_circle(double *dest, size_t n, double r)
{
double x0 = cos(2*M_PI/n), y0 = sin(2*M_PI/n), x=x0, y=y0, tmp;
for (;;) {
*dest++ = r*x;
*dest++ = r*y;
if (!--n) break;
tmp = x*x0 - y*y0;
y = x*y0 + y*x0;
x = tmp;
}
}
You have to solve this in c language:
In an x-y Cartesian coordinate system, the circle with centre coordinates (a, b) and radius r is the set of all points (x, y) such that
(x - a)^2 + (y - b)^2 = r^2
Here's a javascript implementation that also takes an optional center point.
function circlePoints (radius, numPoints, centerX, centerY) {
centerX = centerX || 0;
centerY = centerY || 0;
var
step = (Math.PI * 2) / numPoints,
current = 0,
i = 0,
results = [],
x, y;
for (; i < numPoints; i += 1) {
x = centerX + Math.sin(current) * radius;
y = centerY + Math.cos(current) * radius;
results.push([x,y]);
console.log('point %d # x:%d, y:%d', i, x, y);
current += step;
}
return results;
}

fast algorithm for drawing filled circles?

I am using Bresenham's circle algorithm for fast circle drawing. However, I also want to (at the request of the user) draw a filled circle.
Is there a fast and efficient way of doing this? Something along the same lines of Bresenham?
The language I am using is C.
Having read the Wikipedia page on Bresenham's (also 'Midpoint') circle algorithm, it would appear that the easiest thing to do would be to modify its actions, such that instead of
setPixel(x0 + x, y0 + y);
setPixel(x0 - x, y0 + y);
and similar, each time you instead do
lineFrom(x0 - x, y0 + y, x0 + x, y0 + y);
That is, for each pair of points (with the same y) that Bresenham would you have you plot, you instead connect with a line.
Just use brute force. This method iterates over a few too many pixels, but it only uses integer multiplications and additions. You completely avoid the complexity of Bresenham and the possible bottleneck of sqrt.
for(int y=-radius; y<=radius; y++)
for(int x=-radius; x<=radius; x++)
if(x*x+y*y <= radius*radius)
setpixel(origin.x+x, origin.y+y);
Here's a C# rough guide (shouldn't be that hard to get the right idea for C) - this is the "raw" form without using Bresenham to eliminate repeated square-roots.
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(200, 200);
int r = 50; // radius
int ox = 100, oy = 100; // origin
for (int x = -r; x < r ; x++)
{
int height = (int)Math.Sqrt(r * r - x * x);
for (int y = -height; y < height; y++)
bmp.SetPixel(x + ox, y + oy, Color.Red);
}
bmp.Save(#"c:\users\dearwicker\Desktop\circle.bmp");
You can use this:
void DrawFilledCircle(int x0, int y0, int radius)
{
int x = radius;
int y = 0;
int xChange = 1 - (radius << 1);
int yChange = 0;
int radiusError = 0;
while (x >= y)
{
for (int i = x0 - x; i <= x0 + x; i++)
{
SetPixel(i, y0 + y);
SetPixel(i, y0 - y);
}
for (int i = x0 - y; i <= x0 + y; i++)
{
SetPixel(i, y0 + x);
SetPixel(i, y0 - x);
}
y++;
radiusError += yChange;
yChange += 2;
if (((radiusError << 1) + xChange) > 0)
{
x--;
radiusError += xChange;
xChange += 2;
}
}
}
Great ideas here!
Since I'm at a project that requires many thousands of circles to be drawn, I have evaluated all suggestions here (and improved a few by precomputing the square of the radius):
http://quick-bench.com/mwTOodNOI81k1ddaTCGH_Cmn_Ag
The Rev variants just have x and y swapped because consecutive access along the y axis are faster with the way my grid/canvas structure works.
The clear winner is Daniel Earwicker's method ( DrawCircleBruteforcePrecalc ) that precomputes the Y value to avoid unnecessary radius checks. Somewhat surprisingly that negates the additional computation caused by the sqrt call.
Some comments suggest that kmillen's variant (DrawCircleSingleLoop) that works with a single loop should be very fast, but it's the slowest here. I assume that is because of all the divisions. But perhaps I have adapted it wrong to the global variables in that code. Would be great if someone takes a look.
EDIT: After looking for the first time since college years at some assembler code, I managed find that the final additions of the circle's origin are a culprit.
Precomputing those, I improved the fastest method by a factor of another 3.7-3.9 according to the bench!
http://quick-bench.com/7ZYitwJIUgF_OkDUgnyMJY4lGlA
Amazing.
This being my code:
for (int x = -radius; x < radius ; x++)
{
int hh = (int)std::sqrt(radius_sqr - x * x);
int rx = center_x + x;
int ph = center_y + hh;
for (int y = center_y-hh; y < ph; y++)
canvas[rx][y] = 1;
}
I like palm3D's answer. For being brute force, this is an amazingly fast solution. There are no square root or trigonometric functions to slow it down. Its one weakness is the nested loop.
Converting this to a single loop makes this function almost twice as fast.
int r2 = r * r;
int area = r2 << 2;
int rr = r << 1;
for (int i = 0; i < area; i++)
{
int tx = (i % rr) - r;
int ty = (i / rr) - r;
if (tx * tx + ty * ty <= r2)
SetPixel(x + tx, y + ty, c);
}
This single loop solution rivals the efficiency of a line drawing solution.
int r2 = r * r;
for (int cy = -r; cy <= r; cy++)
{
int cx = (int)(Math.Sqrt(r2 - cy * cy) + 0.5);
int cyy = cy + y;
lineDDA(x - cx, cyy, x + cx, cyy, c);
}
palm3D's brute-force algorithm I found to be a good starting point. This method uses the same premise, however it includes a couple of ways to skip checking most of the pixels.
First, here's the code:
int largestX = circle.radius;
for (int y = 0; y <= radius; ++y) {
for (int x = largestX; x >= 0; --x) {
if ((x * x) + (y * y) <= (circle.radius * circle.radius)) {
drawLine(circle.center.x - x, circle.center.x + x, circle.center.y + y);
drawLine(circle.center.x - x, circle.center.x + x, circle.center.y - y);
largestX = x;
break; // go to next y coordinate
}
}
}
Next, the explanation.
The first thing to note is that if you find the minimum x coordinate that is within the circle for a given horizontal line, you immediately know the maximum x coordinate.
This is due to the symmetry of the circle. If the minimum x coordinate is 10 pixels ahead of the left of the bounding box of the circle, then the maximum x is 10 pixels behind the right of the bounding box of the circle.
The reason to iterate from high x values to low x values, is that the minimum x value will be found with less iterations. This is because the minimum x value is closer to the left of the bounding box than the centre x coordinate of the circle for most lines, due to the circle being curved outwards, as seen on this image
The next thing to note is that since the circle is also symmetric vertically, each line you find gives you a free second line to draw, each time you find a line in the top half of the circle, you get one on the bottom half at the radius-y y coordinate. Therefore, when any line is found, two can be drawn and only the top half of the y values needs to be iterated over.
The last thing to note is that is that if you start from a y value that is at the centre of the circle and then move towards the top for y, then the minimum x value for each next line must be closer to the centre x coordinate of the circle than the last line. This is also due to the circle curving closer towards the centre x value as you go up the circle. Here is a visual on how that is the case.
In summary:
If you find the minimum x coordinate of a line, you get the maximum x coordinate for free.
Every line you find to draw on the top half of the circle gives you a line on the bottom half of the circle for free.
Every minimum x coordinate has to be closer to the centre of the circle than the previous x coordinate for each line when iterating from the centre y coordinate to the top.
You can also store the value of (radius * radius), and also (y * y) instead of calculating them
multiple times.
Here's how I'm doing it:
I'm using fixed point values with two bits precision (we have to manage half points and square values of half points)
As mentionned in a previous answer, I'm also using square values instead of square roots.
First, I'm detecting border limit of my circle in a 1/8th portion of the circle. I'm using symetric of these points to draw the 4 "borders" of the circle. Then I'm drawing the square inside the circle.
Unlike the midpoint circle algorith, this one will work with even diameters (and with real numbers diameters too, with some little changes).
Please forgive me if my explanations were not clear, I'm french ;)
void DrawFilledCircle(int circleDiameter, int circlePosX, int circlePosY)
{
const int FULL = (1 << 2);
const int HALF = (FULL >> 1);
int size = (circleDiameter << 2);// fixed point value for size
int ray = (size >> 1);
int dY2;
int ray2 = ray * ray;
int posmin,posmax;
int Y,X;
int x = ((circleDiameter&1)==1) ? ray : ray - HALF;
int y = HALF;
circlePosX -= (circleDiameter>>1);
circlePosY -= (circleDiameter>>1);
for (;; y+=FULL)
{
dY2 = (ray - y) * (ray - y);
for (;; x-=FULL)
{
if (dY2 + (ray - x) * (ray - x) <= ray2) continue;
if (x < y)
{
Y = (y >> 2);
posmin = Y;
posmax = circleDiameter - Y;
// Draw inside square and leave
while (Y < posmax)
{
for (X = posmin; X < posmax; X++)
setPixel(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+Y);
Y++;
}
// Just for a better understanding, the while loop does the same thing as:
// DrawSquare(circlePosX+Y, circlePosY+Y, circleDiameter - 2*Y);
return;
}
// Draw the 4 borders
X = (x >> 2) + 1;
Y = y >> 2;
posmax = circleDiameter - X;
int mirrorY = circleDiameter - Y - 1;
while (X < posmax)
{
setPixel(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+Y);
setPixel(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+mirrorY);
setPixel(circlePosX+Y, circlePosY+X);
setPixel(circlePosX+mirrorY, circlePosY+X);
X++;
}
// Just for a better understanding, the while loop does the same thing as:
// int lineSize = circleDiameter - X*2;
// Upper border:
// DrawHorizontalLine(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+Y, lineSize);
// Lower border:
// DrawHorizontalLine(circlePosX+X, circlePosY+mirrorY, lineSize);
// Left border:
// DrawVerticalLine(circlePosX+Y, circlePosY+X, lineSize);
// Right border:
// DrawVerticalLine(circlePosX+mirrorY, circlePosY+X, lineSize);
break;
}
}
}
void DrawSquare(int x, int y, int size)
{
for( int i=0 ; i<size ; i++ )
DrawHorizontalLine(x, y+i, size);
}
void DrawHorizontalLine(int x, int y, int width)
{
for(int i=0 ; i<width ; i++ )
SetPixel(x+i, y);
}
void DrawVerticalLine(int x, int y, int height)
{
for(int i=0 ; i<height ; i++ )
SetPixel(x, y+i);
}
To use non-integer diameter, you can increase precision of fixed point or use double values.
It should even be possible to make a sort of anti-alias depending on the difference between dY2 + (ray - x) * (ray - x) and ray2 (dx² + dy² and r²)
If you want a fast algorithm, consider drawing a polygon with N sides, the higher is N, the more precise will be the circle.
I would just generate a list of points and then use a polygon draw function for the rendering.
It may not be the algorithm yo are looking for and not the most performant one,
but I always do something like this:
void fillCircle(int x, int y, int radius){
// fill a circle
for(int rad = radius; rad >= 0; rad--){
// stroke a circle
for(double i = 0; i <= PI * 2; i+=0.01){
int pX = x + rad * cos(i);
int pY = y + rad * sin(i);
drawPoint(pX, pY);
}
}
}
The following two methods avoid the repeated square root calculation by drawing multiple parts of the circle at once and should therefore be quite fast:
void circleFill(const size_t centerX, const size_t centerY, const size_t radius, color fill) {
if (centerX < radius || centerY < radius || centerX + radius > width || centerY + radius > height)
return;
const size_t signedRadius = radius * radius;
for (size_t y = 0; y < radius; y++) {
const size_t up = (centerY - y) * width;
const size_t down = (centerY + y) * width;
const size_t halfWidth = roundf(sqrtf(signedRadius - y * y));
for (size_t x = 0; x < halfWidth; x++) {
const size_t left = centerX - x;
const size_t right = centerX + x;
pixels[left + up] = fill;
pixels[right + up] = fill;
pixels[left + down] = fill;
pixels[right + down] = fill;
}
}
}
void circleContour(const size_t centerX, const size_t centerY, const size_t radius, color stroke) {
if (centerX < radius || centerY < radius || centerX + radius > width || centerY + radius > height)
return;
const size_t signedRadius = radius * radius;
const size_t maxSlopePoint = ceilf(radius * 0.707106781f); //ceilf(radius * cosf(TWO_PI/8));
for (size_t i = 0; i < maxSlopePoint; i++) {
const size_t depth = roundf(sqrtf(signedRadius - i * i));
size_t left = centerX - depth;
size_t right = centerX + depth;
size_t up = (centerY - i) * width;
size_t down = (centerY + i) * width;
pixels[left + up] = stroke;
pixels[right + up] = stroke;
pixels[left + down] = stroke;
pixels[right + down] = stroke;
left = centerX - i;
right = centerX + i;
up = (centerY - depth) * width;
down = (centerY + depth) * width;
pixels[left + up] = stroke;
pixels[right + up] = stroke;
pixels[left + down] = stroke;
pixels[right + down] = stroke;
}
}
This was used in my new 3D printer Firmware, and it is proven the
fastest way for filled circle of a diameter from 1 to 43 pixel. If
larger is needed, the following memory block(or array) should be
extended following a structure I wont waste my time explaining...
If you have questions, or need larger diameter than 43, contact me, I
will help you drawing the fastest and perfect filled circles... or
Bresenham's circle drawing algorithm can be used above those
diameters, but having to fill the circle after, or incorporating the
fill into Bresenham's circle drawing algorithm, will only result in
slower fill circle than my code. I already benchmarked the different
codes, my solution is 4 to 5 times faster. As a test I have been
able to draw hundreds of filled circles of different size and colors
on a BigTreeTech tft24 1.1 running on a 1-core 72 Mhz cortex-m4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Wp5yn3ADI
// this must be declared anywhere, as static or global
// as long as the function can access it !
uint8_t Rset[252]={
0,1,1,2,2,1,2,3,3,1,3,3,4,4,2,3,4,5,5,5,2,4,5,5,
6,6,6,2,4,5,6,6,7,7,7,2,4,5,6,7,7,8,8,8,2,5,6,7,
8,8,8,9,9,9,3,5,6,7,8,9,9,10,10,10,10,3,5,7,8,9,
9,10,10,11,11,11,11,3,5,7,8,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,
12,12,3,6,7,9,10,10,11,12,12,12,13,13,13,13,3,6,
8,9,10,11,12,12,13,13,13,14,14,14,14,3,6,8,9,10,
11,12,13,13,14,14,14,15,15,15,15,3,6,8,10,11,12,
13,13,14,14,15,15,15,16,16,16,16,4,7,8,10,11,12,
13,14,14,15,16,16,16,17,17,17,17,17,4,7,9,10,12,
13,14,14,15,16,16,17,17,17,18,18,18,18,18,4,7,9,
11,12,13,14,15,16,16,17,17,18,18,18,19,19,19,19,
19,7,9,11,12,13,15,15,16,17,18,18,19,19,20,20,20,
20,20,20,20,20,7,9,11,12,14,15,16,17,17,18,19,19
20,20,21,21,21,21,21,21,21,21};
// SOLUTION 1: (the fastest)
void FillCircle_v1(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t r)
{
// all needed variables are created and set to their value...
uint16_t radius=(r<1) ? 1 : r ;
if (radius>21 ) {radius=21; }
uint16_t diam=(radius*2)+1;
uint16_t ymir=0, cur_y=0;
radius--; uint16_t target=(radius*radius+3*radius)/2; radius++;
// this part draws directly into the ILI94xx TFT buffer mem.
// using pointers..2 versions where you can draw
// pixels and lines with coordinates will follow
for (uint16_t yy=0; yy<diam; yy++)
{ ymir= (yy<=radius) ? yy+target : target+diam-(yy+1);
cur_y=y-radius+yy;
uint16_t *pixel=buffer_start_addr+x-Rset[ymir]+cur_y*buffer_width;
for (uint16_t xx= 0; xx<=(2*Rset[ymir]); xx++)
{ *pixel++ = CANVAS::draw_color; }}}
// SOLUTION 2: adaptable to any system that can
// add a pixel at a time: (drawpixel or add_pixel,etc_)
void FillCircle_v2(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t r)
{
// all needed variables are created and set to their value...
uint16_t radius=(r<1) ? 1 : r ;
if (radius>21 ) {radius=21; }
uint16_t diam=(radius*2)+1;
uint16_t ymir=0, cur_y=0;
radius--; uint16_t target=(radius*radius+3*radius)/2; radius++;
for (uint16_t yy=0; yy<diam; yy++)
{ ymir= (yy<=radius) ? yy+target : target+diam-(yy+1);
cur_y=y-radius+yy;
uint16_t Pixel_x=x-Rset[ymir];
for (uint16_t xx= 0; xx<=(2*Rset[ymir]); xx++)
{ //use your add_pixel or draw_pixel here
// using those coordinates:
// X position will be... (Pixel_x+xx)
// Y position will be... (cur_y)
// and add those 3 brackets at the end
}}}
// SOLUTION 3: adaptable to any system that can draw fast
// horizontal lines
void FillCircle_v3(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t r)
{
// all needed variables are created and set to their value...
uint16_t radius=(r<1) ? 1 : r ;
if (radius>21 ) {radius=21; }
uint16_t diam=(radius*2)+1;
uint16_t ymir=0, cur_y=0;
radius--; uint16_t target=(radius*radius+3*radius)/2; radius++;
for (uint16_t yy=0; yy<diam; yy++)
{ ymir= (yy<=radius) ? yy+target : target+diam-(yy+1);
cur_y=y-radius+yy;
uint16_t start_x=x-Rset[ymir];
uint16_t width_x=2*Rset[ymir];
// ... then use your best drawline function using those values:
// start_x: position X of the start of the line
// cur_y: position Y of the current line
// width_x: length of the line
// if you need a 2nd coordinate then :end_x=start_x+width_x
// and add those 2 brackets after !!!
}}
I did pretty much what AlegGeorge did but I changed three lines. I thought that this is faster but these are the results am I doing anything wrong? my function is called DrawBruteforcePrecalcV4. here's the code:
for (int x = 0; x < radius ; x++) // Instead of looping from -radius to radius I loop from 0 to radius
{
int hh = (int)std::sqrt(radius_sqr - x * x);
int rx = center_x + x;
int cmx = center_x - x;
int ph = center_y+hh;
for (int y = center_y-hh; y < ph; y++)
{
canvas[rx][y] = 1;
canvas[cmx][y] = 1;
}
}

Filling a polygon

I created this function that draws a simple polygon with n number of vertexes:
void polygon (int n)
{
double pI = 3.141592653589;
double area = min(width / 2, height / 2);
int X = 0, Y = area - 1;
double offset = Y;
int lastx, lasty;
double radius = sqrt(X * X + Y * Y);
double quadrant = atan2(Y, X);
int i;
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
lastx = X; lasty = Y;
quadrant = quadrant + pI * 2.0 / n;
X = round((double)radius * cos(quadrant));
Y = round((double)radius * sin(quadrant));
setpen((i * 255) / n, 0, 0, 0.0, 1); // r(interval) g b, a, size
moveto(offset + lastx, offset + lasty); // Moves line offset
lineto(offset + X, offset + Y); // Draws a line from offset
}
}
How can I fill it with a solid color?
I have no idea how can I modify my code in order to draw it filled.
The common approach to fill shapes is to find where the edges of the polygon cross either each x or each y coordinate. Usually, y coordinates are used, so that the filling can be done using horizontal lines. (On framebuffer devices like VGA, horizontal lines are faster than vertical lines, because they use consecutive memory/framebuffer addresses.)
In that vein,
void fill_regular_polygon(int center_x, int center_y, int vertices, int radius)
{
const double a = 2.0 * 3.14159265358979323846 / (double)vertices;
int i = 1;
int y, px, py, nx, ny;
if (vertices < 3 || radius < 1)
return;
px = 0;
py = -radius;
nx = (int)(0.5 + radius * sin(a));
ny = (int)(0.5 - radius * cos(a));
y = -radius;
while (y <= ny || ny > py) {
const int x = px + (nx - px) * (y - py) / (ny - py);
if (center_y + y >= 0 && center_y + y < height) {
if (center_x - x >= 0)
moveto(center_x - x, center_y + y);
else
moveto(0, center_y + y);
if (center_x + x < width)
lineto(center_x + x, center_y + y);
else
lineto(width - 1, center_y + y);
}
y++;
while (y > ny) {
if (nx < 0)
return;
i++;
px = nx;
py = ny;
nx = (int)(0.5 + radius * sin(a * (double)i));
ny = (int)(0.5 - radius * cos(a * (double)i));
}
}
}
Note that I only tested the above with a simple SVG generator, and compared the drawn lines to the polygon. Seems to work correctly, but use at your own risk; no guarantees.
For general shapes, use your favourite search engine to look for "polygon filling" algorithms. For example, this, this, this, and this.
There are 2 different ways to implement a solution:
Scan-line
Starting at the coordinate that is at the top (smallest y value), continue to scan down line by line (incrementing y) and see which edges intersect the line.
For convex polygons you find 2 points, (x1,y) and (x2,y). Simply draw a line between those on each scan-line.
For concave polygons this can also be a multiple of 2. Simply draw lines between each pair. After one pair, go to the next 2 coordinates. This will create a filled/unfilled/filled/unfilled pattern on that scan line which resolves to the correct overall solution.
In case you have self-intersecting polygons, you would also find coordinates that are equal to some of the polygon points, and you have to filter them out. After that, you should be in one of the cases above.
If you filtered out the polygon points during scan-lining, don't forget to draw them as well.
Flood-fill
The other option is to use flood-filling. It has to perform more work evaluating the border cases at every step per pixel, so this tends to turn out as a slower version. The idea is to pick a seed point within the polygon, and basically recursively extend up/down/left/right pixel by pixel until you hit a border.
The algorithm has to read and write the entire surface of the polygon, and does not cross self-intersection points. There can be considerable stack-buildup (for naive implementations at least) for large surfaces, and the reduced flexibility you have for the border condition is pixel-based (e.g. flooding into gaps when other things are drawn on top of the polygon). In this sense, this is not a mathematically correct solution, but it works well for many applications.
The most efficient solution is by decomposing the regular polygon in trapezoids (and one or two triangles).
By symmetry, the vertexes are vertically aligned and it is an easy matter to find the limiting abscissas (X + R cos(2πn/N) and X + R cos(2π(+1)N)).
You also have the ordinates (Y + R sin(2πn/N) and Y + R sin(2π(+1)N)) and it suffices to interpolate linearly between two vertexes by Y = Y0 + (Y1 - Y0) (X - X0) / (X1 - X0).
Filling in horizontal runs is a little more complex, as the vertices may not be aligned horizontally and there are more trapezoids.
Anyway, it seems that I / solved / this myself again, when not relying on assistance (or any attempt for it)
void polygon (int n)
{
double pI = 3.141592653589;
double area = min(width / 2, height / 2);
int X = 0, Y = area - 1;
double offset = Y;
int lastx, lasty;
while(Y-->0) {
double radius = sqrt(X * X + Y * Y);
double quadrant = atan2(Y, X);
int i;
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
lastx = X; lasty = Y;
quadrant = quadrant + pI * 2.0 / n;
X = round((double)radius * cos(quadrant));
Y = round((double)radius * sin(quadrant));
//setpen((i * 255) / n, 0, 0, 0.0, 1);
setpen(255, 0, 0, 0.0, 1); // just red
moveto(offset + lastx, offset + lasty);
lineto(offset + X, offset + Y);
} }
}
As you can see, it isn't very complex, which means it might not be the most efficient solution either.. but it is close enough.
It decrements radius and fills it by virtue of its smaller version with smaller radius.
On that way, precision plays an important role and the higher n is the less accuracy it will be filled with.

Resources