I've been searching high and low (mostly on google) for a fast, efficient, templated (ie. with STL-like properties) octree implementation, without success. I want to use this in the context of a 3D scene graph.
Does such a thing exist, or do people generally roll their own? I'm hoping my friends at stackoverflow will know where to find one.
http://nomis80.org/code/octree.html
This is my favorite. It is GPL and has it's own homepage, so it's meant to be used by others. It has Doxygen documentation, and the authors are taking questions.
http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Octree_Implementation.shtml
This one is not templated. It has more comments in the code than every other I've seen, so that might be more useful if you are trying to find out how octrees work.
Also recently released: http://www.openvdb.org/
A volume hierarchy format by Dreamworks.
Check this one out: http://svn.pointclouds.org/pcl/trunk/octree/
Updated link: https://github.com/PointCloudLibrary/pcl/tree/master/octree
Related
I am working on a project which uses a control algorithm to complete a task. The project already has a simulator created for it. I would like to experiment and see if a NEAT AI could do a better job and replace the current control algorithm. I've read through the NEAT publication Competitive Coevolution through Evolutionary Complexification. I have also looked at the original c++ implementation.
I was hoping it would be possible to use and existing implementation of NEAT and combine it with the existing simulator in order to train an awesome control algorithm. There is not much documentation on how i could modify the original NEAT C++ for my needs, are there any tutorials or other implementation which will suit my needs?
Thanks
Answer is little late, but maybe it will help someone else.
I do not know if you read initial Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies, but there is explained. About code, only documentation is that one in package that you referenced.
I also found that book "AI Techniques for Game Programming" by Mat Buckland had chapter dedicated to NEAT algorithm with NEAT code (different from original referenced), but maybe it could give you some insight into code.
UPDATE:
Most easiest way is to check out experiments included in code. From there you can see that you just call NEAT algorithm and define function to calculate fitness.
I've been searching high and low (mostly on google) for a fast, efficient, templated (ie. with STL-like properties) octree implementation, without success. I want to use this in the context of a 3D scene graph.
Does such a thing exist, or do people generally roll their own? I'm hoping my friends at stackoverflow will know where to find one.
http://nomis80.org/code/octree.html
This is my favorite. It is GPL and has it's own homepage, so it's meant to be used by others. It has Doxygen documentation, and the authors are taking questions.
http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Octree_Implementation.shtml
This one is not templated. It has more comments in the code than every other I've seen, so that might be more useful if you are trying to find out how octrees work.
Also recently released: http://www.openvdb.org/
A volume hierarchy format by Dreamworks.
Check this one out: http://svn.pointclouds.org/pcl/trunk/octree/
Updated link: https://github.com/PointCloudLibrary/pcl/tree/master/octree
I would like to know what do you use to sketch relations between different entities in C/C++. This can be a very broad issue, so I'll try to clarify a bit more my question and give an example.
I'm looking for something that is simple enough as a user, and let me sketch easily containers, pointers, etc... in an informal way.
The aim is to document some structs relations to pass them to junior developers. A look at the drawings is supposed to accelerate the understanding of the code.
My solutions at this moment are to use:
1) Paper & pencil.
2) Microsoft PowerPoint/Word Autoshapes.
3) Freeware Dia.
Other ones could be:
4) Microsoft Visio, but my company does not own licenses.
5) UML tools. I don't want to go this way. This is what I mean a more formal solution.
I know tools like Rational Rose are xxx, and I tried boUML and violet and they are fine in some parts, but I prefer the flexibility of options 1), 2) or 3).
Finally, let me write down a more concrete example:
Let's say I what to sketch a map that contains another map as the mapped value, and that one contains a struct as the mapped value, that holds a vector of pointers of a type and a pointer to other type. Also, there exist other structs that hold pointers to the objects pointed by the previous map, so there are objects pointed from different places.
This is just one example I have, but you can easily come with one from you experience.
What would you use to sketch this example or another similar you have dealt with?
Best regards,
Tomas.
Visio is great for quickly creating these types of illustrations / diagrams. I recommend at least trying to get your company to purchase a license.
If Visio is truly not an option for you, the next step may be to consider Open Source alternatives to Visio.
I have two things I use.
My whiteboard. Whiteboards are really tough to beat for diagramming something quickly.
UMLPad. It's small, so it doesn't have a ton of unrelated features to deal with, it is targeted to UML diagrams, and it is GPL.
For design issues, involving thoughts by a good many people, we've used "Post-It Design". The idea is simple:
Pick a whiteboard
Represent an entity as a Post-It (name + some comments)
Draw the relationships on the white board moving the post-its around as required
And when you're done ? Photo of the whole thing for perenity emailed to the persons involved :)
It may seem artisanal but it really remind me of the paper design approach to GUIs.
Have you tried Google Doc's Drawing? The link is one of the diagrams I've done with it.
I like yuml as a very easy way to create diagrams, that also keep that informal look. And no real drawing needed :)
I would use graphviz, but since you say "something that is simple enough as a user", dia is probably a better alternative.
I've used ArgoUML but you'll have to decide whether it's simple enough for what you have in mind.
For the sake of completeness: there's also StarUML, which is (windows) freeware and let's you create uml-diagrams pretty quickly.
Visual Paradigm UML the community edition is free and is good enough for sketching
Open Office Draw works for most of what you want to do too
You specify, that you are not just using U.M.L., most tools, these days are directed to specific U.M.L., you may want to look for a generic drawing tool.
At some projects, sometimes I use Open Office Draw, because, the company doesn't allow me to use another software (the company won't wan't to pay), its similar to Power Point or a reduced, simplified, version of Corel Draw:
http://www.openoffice.org/
In other cases, I have try both commercial and open source apps, but, doesn't like it.
At home, I use (paid software):
http://www.novagraph.com/
along with Open Office Draw.
These one, its also good (paid software):
http://www.smartdraw.com
Good Luck.
If you have an existing codebase you wish for a developer to understand (it sounds like you are trying to help junior devs come up to speed quicker) why not run your code through doxygen
With various output types and the ability to draw class hierarchies it really is a useful tool. The added benefit of something like the html output is that you dont have to cram everything into a finite amount of space since all relationships are hyperlinked. Users can just browse the source - at a type-level - without having to worry much about the details.
The (directed) graphs represent finite automata. Up until now my test program has been writing out dot files for testing. This is pretty good both for regression testing (keep the verified output files in subversion, ask it if there has been a change) and for visualisation. However, there are some problems...
Basically, I want something callable from C++ and which plans a layout for my states and transitions but leaves the drawing to me - something that will allow me to draw things however I want and draw on GUI (wxWidgets) windows.
I also want a license which will allow commercial use - I don't need that at present, and I may very well release as open source, but I don't want to limit my options ATM.
The problems with GraphViz are (1) the warnings about building from source on Windows, (2) all the unnecessary dependencies for rendering and parsing, and (3) the (presumed) lack of a documented API specifically and purely for layout.
Basically, I want to be able to specify my states (with bounding rectangle sizes) and transitions, and read out positions for the states and waypoints for each transition, then draw based on those co-ordinates myself. I haven't really figured out how annotations on transitions should be handled, but there should be some kind of provision for specifying bounding-box-sizes for those, associating them with transitions, and reading out positions.
Does anyone know of a library that can handle those requirements?
I'm not necessarily against implementing something for myself, but in this case I'd rather avoid it if possible.
Hmm, GDToolkit (or GDT) looks okay: many of the images in the tutorial look pretty nice, and it doesn't look like it's terribly complicated to use.
Edit: But checking the license, it looks like it's commercial software :-(. Whoops!
OGDF is under the GPL.
Pigale is also under the GPL.
GoVisual is commercial software, but it looks like it starts at $1800 for one developer.
I was dealing with a similar problem earlier this year. One important input parameter for a decision however is the expected number of nodes.
I decided to use the Browser as the GUI and therefore looked for nice Javascript libraries, one i came across was wireit, it is very well suited for technical layouts (and also editing with drag and drop and "on the fly" layouting). You could easily connect that to your c++ by running a small webserver in a thread (You will need some kind of eventloop/thread thingie for GUI anyways).
Well just my 2 cents.
Although the answers so far were worth an upvote, I can't really accept any of them. I've still been searching, though.
One thing I found is AGLO. The code is GPL v1, but there are papers that describe the algorithms, so it should be easy enough to re-implement from scratch if necessary.
There's also the paper by Gansner, Koutsofios, North and Vo - "A Technique for Drawing Directed Graphs" - available from here on the Graphviz site.
I've also been looking closely at the BSD-licensed (but Java) JGraph.
One way or the other, it looks like I might be re-implementing the wheel, if not actually re-inventing it.
Here is a good collection of Graph Libs with comparison and searching functionality:
http://gvsr.polytech.univ-nantes.fr/GVSR/task?action=browse#
Maybe you find a lib which fits for you.
I'm creating a design document for a security subsystem, to be written in C++. I've created a class diagram and sequence diagrams for the major use cases. I've also specified the public attributes, associations and methods for each of the classes. But, I haven't drilled the method definitions down to the C++ level yet. Since I'm new to C++ , as is the other developer, I wonder if it might not make sense go ahead and specify to this level. Thoughts?
edit: Wow - completely against, unanimous. I was thinking about, for example, the whole business about specifying const vs. non-const, passing references, handling default constructor and assigns, and so forth. I do believe it's been quite helpful to spec this out to this level of detail so far. I definitely have gotten a clearer idea of how the system will work. Maybe if I just do a few methods, as an example, before diving into the code?
I wouldn't recommend going to this level, but then again you've already gone past where I would go in a design specification. My personal feeling is that putting a lot of effort into detailed design up-front is going to be wasted as you find out in developing code that your guesses as to how the code will work are wrong. I would stick with a high-level design and think about using TDD (test driven development) to guide the low-level design and implementation.
I would say it makes no sense at all, and that you have gone too far already. If you are new to C++ you are in no position to write a detailed design document for a C++ project. I would recommend you try to implement what you already have in C++, learn by the inevitable mistakes (like public attributes) and then go back and revise it.
Since you're new, it probably makes sense not to drill down.
Reason: You're still figuring out the language and how things are best structured. That means you'll make mistakes initially and you'll want to correct them without constantly updating the documentation.
It really depends on who the design document is targeted at. If it's for a boss who is non-technical, then you are good with what you have.
If it's for yourself, then you are using the tool to help you, so you decide. I create method level design docs when I am creating a project, but it's at a high level so I can figure out what the features of the various classes should be. I've found that across languages, the primary functionalities of a class have little to do with the programming language we are working in. Some of the internal details and functions required certainly vary due to the chosen language, but those are implementation details that I don't bother with during the design phase.
It certainly helps me to know that for instance an authorization class might have an authenticate function that takes a User object as a parameter. I don't really care during design that I might need an internal string md5 function wrapper to accomplish some specific goal. I find out about that while coding.
The goal of initial design is to get organized so you can make progress with clarity and forethought rather than tearing out and reimplementing the same function 4 times because you forgot some scenario due to not planning.
EDIT: I work in PHP a lot, and I actually use PhpDoc to do some of the design docs, by simply writing the method signature with no implementation, then putting a detailed description of what the method should do in the method header comments. This helps anyone that is using my class in the future, because the design IS the documentation. I can also change the documentation if I do need to make some alterations while coding.
I work in php4 a lot, so I don't get to use interfaces. In php5, I create the interface, then implement it elsewhere.
The best way to specify how the code should actually fit together is in code. The design document is for other things that are not easily expressed in code. You should use it for describing the actual need the program fills, How it interacts with users, what the constraints are in terms of hardware and operating systems. Certainly describe the overall architecture of your application in a design document, but, for instance, the API should actually be described in the code that exposes the API.
You have already gone far enough with the documentation part. As you still a beginner in C++, when you would understand the language, you might want to change the structure of your program. Then you would have to do changes in the documentation. I would suggest that you have already gone too far with the documentation. No need to drill more into it
Like everyone else says, you've gone way past where you need to go with the design. Do you have a good set of requirements to the simple true/false statement level that you derived that design from? You can design all day long, but if you don't have requirements that simply say WHAT you're going to do, it doesn't matter how good your design is.