Multiple extruded polygons Mapbox iOS - swift

Latest Mapbox SDK and Swift
So I've been battling with this for 3 days now...
I'm trying to use an array of coordinates to create a line of extruded cylindrical pillars (or a sloped solid "wall" if that makes sense... But I've found this to be harder than just a line of pillars)
I've read most of Mapbox's docs but can't get my head wrapped around the use of MGLShapeSource, MGLPolygon and MGLFillExtrusionStyleLayer.
From what I can tell, one needs to add a polygon to a source, add that source to the map object, then apply the extrusion layer to that source... However, I can't figure out how to make that work.
This is what I've managed so far, as a solid wall... But using pillars, I could adjust the height as the line goes, creating a sloping look
Any advice would be appreciated. I'd paste my code here but it is WAY too messy and too much after 3 days of trial and error. haha.
BONUS: I'd like to animate the path being created as it goes... So pillar 1 appears at a certain height, then pillar two and a lower height, then pillar 3 and so on. This involves modifying the source apparently - have little idea on how to do that though :(

Are there individual height properties associated with the points in your underlying data? Your end goal is definitely possible, but it's dependent on whether or not you have the data for reference by your style layer.
Unfortunately, the Mapbox site doesn't have any iOS examples explicitly tied to this. But, the 3D buildings example follows basically the same flow. (i.e. mapView.addSource -> MGLFillExtrusionStyleLayer -> layer.fillExtrusionHeight).
The crucial bit in the building example is using .fillExtrusionHeight with a "forKeyPath" expression to set the extrusion height based on the corresponding property in your data:
layer.fillExtrusionHeight = NSExpression(forKeyPath: "height")
If you don't have height within your underlying data, you'll have to get some in order for the extrusion styling to work this way.
⚠️ Disclaimer: I currently work for Mapbox ⚠️

Related

Pixel local position within a quad

I have this quad in the 3D scene:
I need to get the local positions of all painted (non transparent) pixels of this quad. Already tried to use GetPixels() and filter the result by the alpha value to get only pixels with a valid color in it. But then I noticed that it isn't possible to get the pixels' local positions using this method, cause it returns a Color array, which doesn't offer a way to retrieve that information. Already tried to google and nothing came up, maybe the only way to get what I want is to build something at shader level, but I don't know much about this subject either. I can offer more context to my doubt if needed, but I'm trying to keep things short here. Also, there's no code to show except for the wrong one using GetPixels(), which doesn't work for my case as far as I know.
Any help is appreciated!

How do I make a Maze Generator on Scratch?

I am currently in High School, and I am in an APCSP (AP Computer Science Principles) class, which in my case is learning in Scratch programming. I am confused and have practically no idea what I'm doing. Scratch is very confusing and I feel like it's pointless to learn.
My question is this: Can anyone help me on how to make a Maze Generator on Scratch, as this is my project and it's giving me struggles.
Thank you.
It's actually possible to build with scratch but depends on what you are looking for. I assume you want to generate a simple maze like in old fashioned 8-bit games like boulder dash.
First decide on the size of your maze: for example 5 x 5 blocks.
If you want to create a maze, imagine drawing it on a grid on paper. Blocks are either "empty" or filled in. Our maze can be represented by numbers. The empty blocks are represented by a 0 and the filled blocks with a 1.
You could visualize that matrix like this if all blocks are empty:
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,0
Adding a border wall while keeping the inside empty would look like:
1,1,1,1,1,
1,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,1,
1,0,0,0,1,
1,1,1,1,1
Using a "list" variable to store this information would fit best within the possibilities of MIT Scratch.
In this case, you need to understand that each block in our maze is represented by a position in above matrix. You could draw numbers on a piece of paper in the shape and size of your grid / matrix as a reference to remember the position of each block if that makes it easier.
We also need to look at how our maze will relate to the Stage size. The width and height in pixels of a default scratch project is 480x360.
A 5 x 5 maze is divided in blocks of 480 / 5 = 96 width and 360 / 5 = 72 height. In other words, a block needs to be 96x72 pixels, based on a full screen maze.
Next step, is creating a sprite representing the visualization of the blocks of the maze. I would keep the first "costume" of our block sprite empty, and create a fully filled block to represent the walls of the maze.
After that, we need to programmatically create our maze. I made an example you can explore of random drawing of the blocks of a maze:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/278731659/
(You can change the rows & columns value to see it scale up, but remember the limit to the amount of clones the block sprite can have is 300)
This is just to get you started and by no means a complete solution. I just hope this helps you think in the right direction.
You can make this more advanced, by adding a function to explore and correct our randomly drawn grid to generate a walkable path from position x to position y. A rule you can program is for example: Every empty position in the grid should have at least two other empty positions in the spaces above, below, left and right of it.
There are many different ways to do this; whether this is with sprites and stamp or 2D lists and pen. Either way, the main component is the algorithm. This wikipedia page gives details on how maze generation works and few different algorithms. There is also a video series by The Coding Train here where he creates a maze generator with the 2D list method from above (this method is a bit harder on scratch, however). Either way, the best thing to do is to look at examples others have made, figure out how they work, and try to recreate them or make them better. Here's a good place to get started.
Scratch IS truly pointless! A simple maze generator would have you use the pen to draw predefined shapes (Such as a long hallway or intersection). You should also make (invisible) squares to separate everything and have the program draw in the squares.
I will put a link later that leads to a sample project that has the code.
Check out this video by griffpatch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Dpi5e9uz8
This was one of my projects, and the instructor provided this video for everyone to follow and expand from.

How to find all layers in Mapboxgl ? Ultimately I want to show custom layer only on water and not on land

I created a custom circle layer. I want to show this layer only on water and not on land. I managed to do the opposite (ie: showing the layer on land and not on water) using below command. Refer this image for better understanding
map.moveLayer('polygon','water');
Now I need to know the land layer which is used by mapboxgl so that I can call function map.moveLayer('polygon','land'); to achieve what i want.
I need help to find the different layers present in the mapboxgl-streets map. But unfortunately, Mapboxgl doesn't have map.eachLayer function.
You can use the Map#getStyle method to get a serialized representation of the entire style including the layers.
map.getStyle().layers
It depends on the map style you're using. In general, you either have to look at its source or load it in Mapbox Studio to identify the correct layer name. Also keep an eye on https://github.com/mapbox/mapbox-gl-js/issues/4173.
Just to add to Lucas' answer (which is still correct), map.getStyle().layers provides all layers in the style, including ones you have explicitly added (via map.addLayer()), and those that are included in the style (which could be a lot). Careful how you filter through these. For my case, I created arrays to hold the layers I created myself, to make future iteration simpler.

Drawing a 3D arc and helix in SceneKit

A recent question here made me think of SceneKit again, and I remembered a problem I never solved.
My app displays antenna designs using SK. Most antennas use metal rods and mesh reflectors so I used SCNCylinder for the rods, SCNPlane for the reflector and SCNFloor for the ground. The whole thing took a couple of hours, and I'm utterly noob at 3D.
But some antennas use wires bent into arcs or helixes, and I punted here and made crappy segmented objects using several cylinders end-to-end. It looks ass-tastic.
Ideally I would like a single object that renders the arc or helix with a cylindrical cross section. Basically SCNTorus, but with a start and end angle. This post talks about using a UIBezierPath in SK, but it uses extrude to produce a ribbon-like shape. Is there a way to do something similar but with a cylinder cross section (like a partial SCNTorus)?
I know I can make a custom shape by creating the vertexes (and normals and such) but I'm hoping I missed a simpler solution.
An arc you can do with SCNShape. Start with the technique from my other answer to get an extruded, ribbon-like arc. You'll want to make sure that the part where your path traces back on itself is offset by a distance the same as your extrusion depth, so you end up with a shape that's square in cross section.
To make it circular in cross section, use the chamferProfile property — give it a path that's a quarter circle, and set the chamfer radius equal to half the extrusion depth, and the four quarter-circle chamfers will meet, forming a circular cross section.
A helix is another story. SCNShape takes a planar path — one that varies in only two dimensions — and extrudes it to make a three-dimensional solid. A helix is a path that varies in three dimensions to start with. SceneKit doesn't have anything that describes a shape in such terms, so there's no super simple answer here.
The shader modifier solution #HalMueller alludes to is interesting, but problematic. It's simple to use a modifier at the geometry entry point to make a simple bend — say, offset every y coordinate by some amount, even by an amount that's a function of why. But that's a one-dimensional transform, so you can't use it to wrap a wire around on itself. (It also changes the cross section.) And on top of that, shader modifiers happen on the GPU at render time, so their effects are an illusion: the "real" geometry in SceneKit's model is still a cylinder, so features like hit testing apply to that and not to the transformed geometry.
The best solution to making something like a helix is probably custom geometry — generating your own vertex data (SCNGeometrySource). The math for finding the set of points on a helix is pretty simple if you follow that shape's definition. To wrap a cross section around it, follow the Frenet formulas to create a local coordinate frame at each point on the helix. Then make an index buffer (SCNGeometryElement) to stitch all those points into a surface with triangles or tristrips. (Okay, that's a lot of hand-waving around a deep topic, but a full tutorial is too big for an SO answer. This should be enough of a breadcrumb to get started, though...)
Here are some starting points that might help.
One approach would be to use more cylinders and make them shorter. That's the same idea behind the various segmentCount properties on the SCNGeometry primitives. Can we see a screenshot of the current linked cylinders version?
If you increase the heightSegmentCount, you could use the approach outlined here: scenekit, how to bend an object.
I just took a look at SCNShape. I was thinking you could use a shader modifier to warp the extruded shape into a circular cross section. But SCNShape doesn't seem to expose a segment count property, which I think you'd need to create enough extrusion segments for a good look. The chamferRadius and chamferProfile properties look interesting. I wonder if you could use those to create an extrusion that looks good.

Is using MapServer to merge several MapLayers on runtime to use with Leaflet a good idea?

MY PROBLEM
We´re doing a Project right now where we have to display a huge image (containing chemical compounds and elements, so not geo referenced) as a map within a Web-Application (with Leaflet). The image itself is an Adobe Illustrator-File, so its actually a bunch of vector graphics. To makes things easy, we just converted it into a large .png (27.000x19.000 px) and then used MapTiler to create the needed MapRessources for Leaflet, easily included within a TileLayer.
The Problem is:
The user needs to be able to dynamically add and remove different Layers (== Filter) of the map to show more or less informationes from the picture. So we first created those layers within the Illustrator-File, then exported every layer as its own transparent .png-File, mapTiled it and included it as an own Leaflet-Layer.
Right now, we have 6 Filter-Layers and two more base Layers for the background and an overlay. This means that when all Filters are activated (which is the default), we have 8 Leaflet-Layers stacked on top of each other at once. As you can imagine, this causes some performance issues in the Browser, since Leaflet has to load and render 8 Layers with all its Tiles (depending on Screen size up to 25 at once) for every zoom or drag-action. Its still in a point that is not impossible to bear, but we are expecting several more filters to come and therefore wanna stay scalable in the future.
This means we will somehow have to change our approach of generating the Layers.
MY APPROACH SO FAR
Since we actually have a vector-graphics based map, i thought there have to be better alternatives. But it seems that we have a rare case of requirements, since my researches mostly ended in dead ends, especially since most of the cases only cover REAL geographical maps, but what we have is a raster map. I also thought about somehow putting the map into a GeoJSON or redraw it somehow directly with SVG, but since we have LOTS of single elements on the map (> 20k), I dont think this would perform much better.
So I kind of need to stay with the Bitmaps, and therfore my main goal is simple: I wanna reduce the number of layers by merging the tiles of the currently activated Filter into one single .png which then gets delivered to leaflet within ONE Layer. I spent some hours now researching, but I always run into dead ends since it seems we have a rare case of requirements here (especially since most people deal with georeferenced data, not with custom raster maps).
So right now, I can think of 2 different options:
Create ONE Layer for every Filter-Combination. This means we would have to create 2^n layers, so this would only work up to a certain number of filters (which probably will increase) - therefore, i would prefer another solution (this is only last case)
Use MapServer and somehow import my Layers. Then we could merge the Layers on runtime with a query (I read about Union Layer here) and therefore only deliver ONE Layer to leaflet.
MY QUESTION
I have absolutely no experience with MapServer and im therefore not even sure if that is a use-case or if its capabale of doing this, and more important: If it would really give us a performacne boost, since it probably requires a lot of logic ServerSide.
Before i start spending another hours to try this out:
Can someone who already worked with MapServer give me some feedback if that is even a good idea or if I am misunderstanding something with MapServer completely?
Also, if someone has another alternative or idea for me, you´re more than welcome to share it, im grateful for every input. :)
Thanks in advance!
You might want to look at OpenLayers where you can display a mix of raster and vector layers. another option might be mapcache a tile caching engine part of the mapserver project. This has the ability to do vertical assembly of tiles. So if you case where you have 8 layers you can ask mapcache to stack all the eight tiles into a single tile. You can give it a list of layers to stack and it takes care of it for you. You can also do this with mapserver. The difference being that mapcache is a lightweight apache module that just works with tiles and is probably a little faster. Mapserver is a cgi-bin process and work efficiently at rendering and combining raster layers but is probably not as fast as mapcache for simple assembly of tiles.