We Keep Coding

Noisy 3D point cloud to interpolated surface mesh in python

My general goal is going from a noisy point cloud describing a surface, to a regular surface mesh, in Python. I have found a few solution to this problem, none of which apply to my case well enough. The best ones I found:
B-spline -> sample it -> get new points. This calculates the z values of a function based on a regular set of x,y coordinates, which won't work well for near-vertical surfaces, of which I have a lot.
Rolling ball / convex hull algorithms. My data is noisy along the normal to the surface, so I would get a surface that's "inflated". I would need first to denoise it, which itself requires the calculation of a spline, or something similar.
I feel like there must be an "easy" way to do this, but I just don't know what to look for. Can someone point me in the right direction?
My best guess is that there should be a way to sample a spline surface "regularly" relatively to itself, but I can't figure out how.

The problem which you describe is named surface reconstruction. There is many algorithms and software (standalone program or libraries) able to reconstruct one surface from a set of sample points. There is important differences depending if you have only the XYZ coordinates of the points, or you have more information as the color or the normal to the surface.
Naming some examples, you can use:
Screened Poisson, by Kazhdan and Bolitho. Which is implemented in meshlab, and many other python libraries. Probably your best option.
PowerCRUST, by Nina Amenta, Sunghee Choi and Ravi Kolluri.
Ball Pivoting, by Bernardini, Mittleman, et al. Quite simple and easy to implement by yourself.

How to check if a 2D point is inside or outside a 2D Closed Bezier Curve using Python?

Hello,
in my 2d software i have two inputs available:
an array of XY points
[(x,y),(1,1),(2,2),(2,3),(-1,3),...]
and another matrix representing the closed 2D bezier curve handles
[((x,y),(x,y),(x,y)),
((-1,-1),(1,1),(1,2)),
((1,1),(2,2),(2,3)),
...]
How can i check if a point is inside or outside the given curve using python ? using preferably numpy maybe

I don't know how the theory of Bezier curves, so if your second list of points is a kind of compressed way to represent a Bezier curve, first try to sample some points of the curve with the precision you want.
So you have n points of your curve, and then you can apply a simple PIP algorithm : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_in_polygon
I can explain in details later if you want to know how to do it programmatically.

I cant write code right here, because I need the entire program to understand properly, however I may provide two approaches how to do that.
The hardest way is to approximate each Bézier curve by a polyline. And then, according to the wiki you can use two techniques:
Ray casting algorithm: the shorthand of the algorithm: You put a ray, which starting from a point and goes through the entire polygon to an another point. Some lines lies inside a polygon, some outside. And then you check to which line belongs a specific point Looks like this:
Winding number algorithm: A little bit about winding numbers. So if a winding number is non-zero, the point lies inside the polygon
The huge drawback of this approach is that the accuracy depends on how close you approximated a curve to a polyline.
The second way is to use a bitmap. For example, you set your points to the white then render the area under the curve to the black and see if your points remain white. This method is more accurate and the fastest one, because you can use the GPU for the render.
And some links related to the first a approach:
https://pomax.github.io/bezierinfo/#intersections
http://web.mit.edu/hyperbook/Patrikalakis-Maekawa-Cho/node80.html

Drawing animation on torus with python?

I recently worked on a code that allowed to display a simulation of particles' motions in a periodical space. In concrete terms, it resulted in a 2D plot provided with N points (N ~ 10^4) initially gathered at the center, then spread out according to a matching velocity. As it is a periodical space, any points that would go beyond the upper limit is actually brought back to the lower limit, and vice versa. To illustrate, here are two images :
Initial positions
After a certain time
Each points are supposed to travel horizontally, either to the right or to the left (respectively positive or negative velocity).
I programmed it using Python, but now, in the scope of my project, I'd like to simulate the same thing but on a torus. To give you a good glimpse of how it looked like, please take a look at the following pic :
Transformation from a rectangle to a torus
(Imagine my initial 2D plan is the initial rectangle, which I'd like to transform into the final torus).
Therefore, in that case we would see every particle moving on the surface of the torus. The previous 1st picture would correspond to particles gathered on a "single" circus of the torus, and the previous 2nd picture would correspond to the "filling up" the entire surface of the torus.
Since my code for previous simulations was written in Python, I am wondering if I can still use it for this task. If so, I'd like to have some clues about how to do it, and otherwise, what would be the best language to use for this ?
I hope I have been clear. I apologize in advance for some mistakes I could have done with English.

Pipeline to create Voronoi Meshes

I would like to implement a Maya plugin (this question is independent from Maya) to create 3D Voronoi patterns, Something like
I just know that I have to start from point sampling (I implemented the adaptive poisson sampling algorithm described in this paper).
I thought that, from those points, I should create the 3D wire of the mesh applying Voronoi but the result was something different from what I expected.
Here are a few example of what I get handling the result i get from scipy.spatial.Voronoi like this (as suggested here):
vor = Voronoi(points)
for vpair in vor.ridge_vertices:
for i in range(len(vpair) - 1):
if all(x >= 0 for x in vpair):
v0 = vor.vertices[vpair[i]]
v1 = vor.vertices[vpair[i+1]]
create_line(v0.tolist(), v1.tolist())
The grey vertices are the sampled points (the original shape was a simple sphere):
Here is a more complex shape (an arm)
I am missing something? Can anyone suggest the proper pipeline and algorithms I have to implement to create such patterns?

I saw your question since you posted it but didn’t have a real answer for you, however as I see you still didn’t get any response I’ll at least write down some ideas from me. Unfortunately it’s still not a full solution for your problem.
For me it seems you’re mixing few separate problems in this question so it would help to break it down to few pieces:
Voronoi diagram:
The diagram is by definition infinite, so when you draw it directly you should expect a similar mess you’ve got on your second image, so this seems fine. I don’t know how the SciPy does that, but the implementation I’ve used flagged some edge ends as ‘infinite’ and provided me the edges direction, so I could clip it at some distance by myself. You’ll need to check the exact data you get from SciPy.
In the 3D world you’ll almost always want to remove such infinite areas to get any meaningful rendering, or at least remove the area that contains your camera.
Points generation:
The Poisson disc is fine as some sample data or for early R&D but it’s also the most boring one :). You’ll need more ways to generate input points.
I tried to imagine the input needed for your ball-like example and I came up with something like this:
Create two spheres of points, with the same center but different radius.
When you create a Voronoi diagram out of it and remove infinite areas you should end up with something like a football ball.
If you created both spheres randomly you’ll get very irregular boundaries of the ‘ball’, but if you scale the points of one sphere, to use for the 2nd one you should get a regular mesh, similar to ball. You can also use similar points, but add some random offset to control the level of surface irregularity.
Get your computed diagram and for each edge create few points along this edge - this will give you small areas building up the edges of bigger areas. Play with random offsets again. Try to ignore edges, that doesn't touch any infinite region to get result similar to your image.
Get the points from both stages and compute the diagram once more.
Mesh generation:
Up to now it didn’t look like your target images. In fact it may be really hard to do it with production quality (for a Maya plugin) but I see some tricks that may help.
What I would try first would be to get all my edges and extrude some circle along them. You may modulate circle size to make it slightly bigger at the ends. Then do Boolean ‘OR’ between all those meshes and some Mesh Smooth at the end.
This way may give you similar results but you’ll need to be careful at mesh intersections, they can get ugly and need some special treatment.

how to convert velocity map to fluid flow map

It may be a very simple question, if you have the answer please share.
Provided a series (say for t0..tn) of the matrices (2D arrays) of velocities in X and Y directions (UX,UY) by means of application of Lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) on the simulation of fluid flow in 2D, the question is how to make an animation of fluid flow.
We should be able to use velocities to find positions of (??) by applying: Position = Velocity x Time. Any ideas of what could be (??).
We think that we could have a same size of velocity matrix of particles for time t0 and find the next position matrix as mentioned above, so to move particles accordingly.
Please share your knowledge!
Is the chosen approach correct?
Any other methods etc etc.
For this problem tips in Python are more than welcome!
Pseudo-codes could be of more help!
To simplify the question the following is the velocity map at time tn, trying to have a fluid flow map based on that, How?

If the initial distribution of your particles is fairly regular (a grid, or uniformly random), you'll find that after a while all the particles tend to cluster together, leaving entire areas of your fluid empty and thus invisible.
I found that a good method is to have short-lived particles (on the order of seconds). When a particle dies, it is respawned in a random position. Also, because each particle traces only a short path, the accuracy of the integration method used doesn't matter so much: a midpoint method or even forward Euler does the job just fine.