I have to detect if the point belongs to the area (the pic. of it is attached).
The condition I wrote seems too long. I am pretty sure there is a way to write it in a more simple way, but I just don't know how.
The only succeeded code of all that I've tried is presented below.
float x, y; int a = 2, b = 1, r = 3;
printf("x = ", x);
scanf ("%f", &x);
printf("y = ", y);
scanf ("%f", &y);
if ( ((pow((x-a), 2) + pow((y-b), 2) <= pow(r,2)) && ((pow((x-a), 2) + pow((y-b),2) >= 1)) && (x <= 2) && (x >= -3) && (y >= -1) && (y <= 4)) || fabs(x) <= 1 && fabs(y) <=1 || (y == x+2 && y >= -1 && x >= -3))
{
printf ("Belongs to the area");
}
else
{
printf ("Doesn't belong to the area");
}
The output is correct, so I expect it would be the same.
Maybe this one:
(optional) If it's outside the white rectangle, return false.
If it's in the red triangle, return true.
If it's in the yellow circle, return false.
If it's in the green rectangle, return true.
If it's in outside the pink circle, return false.
If it's inside the blue rectangle, return true.
If it's none of the above, return false.
The first step is optional, to save a few checks. It would improve performance if a good portion of your test points are far away from your area.
Code example (untested, not really a C guy):
bool point_in_rectangle(double x, double y, double min_x, double max_x, double min_y, double max_y) {
if (x < min_x) return false;
if (x > max_x) return false;
if (y < min_y) return false;
if (y > max_y) return false;
return true;
}
// "easy" means it's properly aligned and has height equal to width
bool point_in_easy_triangle(double x, double y, double min_x, double max_x, double base_y) {
if (x < min_x) return false;
if (x > max_x) return false;
if (y < base_y) return false;
if (x - min_x < y - base_y) return false;
return true;
}
bool point_in_circle(double x, double y, double center_x, double center_y, double radius) {
double distance_x = x - center_x;
double distance_y = y - center_y;
double distance_squared = distance_x * distance_x + distance_y * distance_y;
return distance_squared < (radius * radius);
}
bool point_in_my_area(double x, double y) {
if (!point_in_rectangle(x, y, -3, 2, -1, 4)) return false;
// etc...
}
I wouldn’t worry about length as such and would worry about clarity and maintainability,
Towards that end I would describe the requirement as
above the line y=-1
left of the line x=2
outside the circle radius 1 # (2,1)
And either
inside the larger circle
below the diagonal line
Then express those conditions in functions (reuse the in/out of a circle test!) and write your if with those functions.
—-
More generally this kind of approach is the basis of constructive planar geometry. The search terms you’ll want are “constructive solid geometry” and “signed distance functions”.
It depends on what your final goal is, and how hard you want to work.
It's true that the expression you have is "too long". I doubt you can fundamentally shorten it, but you can certainly clarify it, and at the same time perhaps simplify it. Some suggestions, in increasing order of sophistication, generality, but also difficulty:
Break up that huge expression onto several lines, to make it easier for the reader to follow (or to make it possible for a reader with a narrow window to even see!). Then you can put a comment next to each part of the expression to explain what it's doing.
Break the various parts of the expression out into completely separate functions. That way the names you choose for the functions can simultaneously be the documentaton.
Make those separate functions general, so that they can work on arbitrary shapes. (That is, instead of an in_circle(x, y) function, that tests whether the point x,y is inside the one circle you care about, write something more like in_circle(x, y, x0, y0, r), that tests whether the point x,y is inside the circle centered at x0,y0 with radius r.)
Implement a scheme for describing arbitrary shapes (perhaps with the details read from a data file), so that there's nothing about one particular area that's hardwired in the program.
Implement a totally general-purpose in_polygon function, that lets you describe a polygon based only on the line segments making up its circumference, not as a set of simpler, overlapping sub-polygons. (This will obviously require using a completely different algorithm.)
Breaking the problem into sub-tests of simpler shapes is the way to go.
Edge concerns: An "outside" test using !inside() is a problem when the point is on the shape's edge.
To use a sub-shape test as both an "inside" and "outside", return 1 of 3 values
int test_rectangle(double x0, double y0, double x1, double y1, double px, double py) {
if (x1 < x0) {
double t = x1; x1 = x0; x0 = t;
}
if (y1 < y0) {
double t = y1; y1 = y0; y0 = t;
}
if (px < x0 || px > x1 || py < y0 || py > y1) return 1; // outside
if (px > x0 && px < x1 && py > y0 && py < y1) return -1; // inside
return 0; // edge
}
A circle test is more challenging. Although the standard function hypot() can provide more accurate results than sqrt(x*x + y*y), the subtractions and hypot() may inject a rounding error that questions select edge case results.
int test_circle(double x, double y, double radius, double px, double py) {
double hyp = hypot(x - px, y - py);
if (hyp > radius) return 1; // outside
if (hyp < radius) return -1; // inside
return 0; // edge
}
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;
}
}
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.