Subject:
|
Optimising piece use (Was: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM voting for March is open)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:21:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
527 times
|
| |
|
|
I wrote:
> Paul Gyugyi wrote:
> > I've often thought of doing a tool that starts with a big
> > cube of 1x1 plates and removes all but the ones inside
> > a closed mesh. It would be really cool if you've done that.
>
> That's more or less what I have done. The problem is to
> automate the replacement of 1x1 plates with larger pieces in
> a sensible way.
I spent some time thinking about this yesterday. If we look at
the problem of substituting the 1×1 plates with larger pieces as
an optimisation problem, then we have to define a good "energy
function" to describe the quality of various piece combinations.
One element of the energy function should of course be the
available pieces. Assume that we know the optimal distribution
of pieces in a LEGO collection. If we were creating a model that
LEGO should sell, then we would use the deviation of the piece
distribution in the model from the optimal piece distribution as
something that subtracts from the quality of the model. If we on
the other hand are creating a model based on our own collection,
it will of course be the deviation of the distribution of the
remaining parts from the optimal distribution that we look at
(plus a barrier when we run out of a piece).
Another element of the energy function should be how strong the
model is. A simple definition of the strength of a model can be
made using conductivity as an analogy to strength. If we imagine
that for every stud-hole connection (or some other kind of
connection) there is between two pieces, they are connected with
a resistor. The more resistors the higher the conductance. If
we then measure the average conductance between randomly chosen
pieces in the model, we will have a measure of how many parallel
connections there are on the average in the model, and thus a
measure of how strong the model is. - My first idea was to use
the minimum and not the average conductance, but this would give
many optisation methods problems, because they would be unable to
distinguish "good" from "better", but only distinguish "better"
from "best". But maybe the minimum conductance should count as a
separate element, and not only as a part of the average
conductivity.
Does it make sense?
Play well,
Jacob
--
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Ydre_rum/Skibe/Complexity/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM voting for March is open
|
| (...) Yes. Do you want the source code? I will only write proper documentation if somebody votes for the model. ;-) (...) That's more or less what I have done. The problem is to automate the replacement of 1x1 plates with larger pieces in a sensible (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
