Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Programming Contest: BoxifyMe

Reply
Thread Tools

Programming Contest: BoxifyMe

 
 
Jim Janney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2010
Lew <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> The contest has turned into an intrigueing development.
>>
>> A contester has presented himself and stepped forward into the dragon's
>> layer !

>
> A draconian layered architecture?! Are we talking about a module that
> needs refactoring?
>
> This is not one of the malapropisms on which I'd normally comment, but
> this one is funnier than most.


Thanks to the work of Cerebron[1], we can partition dragons into three
distinct categories: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely
hypothetical...

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cerebron

--
Jim Janney
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Dow Allen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2010
On Dec 14, 9:00*pm, pete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I can access it with Netscape 3.04g and also with IE 6.


I can access both now. Whatever problem it was went away.

James
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2010
A new and the most spectacular contender/contester so far:

David Eisenstat has entered the contest.

And it appears he has become the King of the Contest (Round1)

There is very little room to improve on his results/solutions.

He submitted two solutions:

1. An overlapping solution/entry
2. A non-overlapping solution/entry.

Both of them are claimed to be optimal. The optimal overlapping result is
hereby pretty much confirmed (217 boxes). The non-overlapping solution still
needs confirmation though (264 boxes).

It also appears there are different optimal solutions at least for the
overlapping variation of the contest.

Because David has supplied two optimal solutions (one for overlapping and
one for non-overlapping) he has become the new King of the Contest of Round
1.

However David's overlapping solution is considered by me to be slightly
better than that of Rob's overlapping solution. Because David's solution has
less "heat"

Perhaps that is subjective but still. So there is very little room for
improvements. A better heatmap or perhaps other better maps might still
de-crown him.

But for now he seems to be sitting firmly on the King's Throne.

Further entries are still accepted:

1. Solver confirmations.
2. Additional algorithms, these will come in handy for the next round.

I shall now start to think and contemplate on the next round. I already have
idea's for the next round. It will probably be very much fun to look it.

Will the solver crowds still be able to participate or will their solvers
break down in sweat and lag behind ?!?

Only time will tell !

The website has been updated for your enjoyment:

http://www.skybuck.org/BoxifyMe/

Bye,
Skybuck =D


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skybuck Flying
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2010

"Brett Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <23c6c$4d064626$54190f09$(E-Mail Removed)1.nb.hom e.nl>,
> "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Brett Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > In article <6b49b$4d03777e$54190f09$(E-Mail Removed)1.nb.ho me.nl>,
>> > "Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > A truly greedy algorithm should have given up some width to steal
>> > half of the blueGreen boxes space. Bias toward most pixels grabbed.
>> > A 2x10 is way better than a 1x12, etc.

>>
>> > You can probably cut the item count of your render list by a third
>> > by including polys. An area greedy algorithm will leave you with
>> > lots of 3 and 6 pixel right triangles, and similar stuff that
>> > explodes into lots of little boxes.

>>
>> This is a novel idea, for opengl and physics this could make sense.
>>
>> It's a bit risky though... if the polygon/triangle because to large and
>> it
>> has a flat angle like so:
>>
>> .
>> ............

>
> With fractional ints that poly is legal.
> For a NTSC screen (640x44 you would use byte pixel addresses and cut
> the screen in four quarters, so no fractions.
> For HD (1280x1024) you end up using 16 bit ints, giving 5 bits of fract.
> Enough for a 16 to 1 slope or so.
>
> After generating each rect you could then adjust the verts by fractions
> to pick up more pixels. This could cut your rect count in half.
> (And double your data size, as now you have to describe four points, not
> 2.)
> But here again fewer items means faster rendering, maybe by ~30%.
>
>> Perhaps also something like:
>> .
>> ..
>> ...
>> ....

>
> And
> .
> ..
> ..
> ...
>
> And
> .
> ..
> ..
> ...
>
> And
> .
> ..
> ...
> ..
>
> And maybe this combination of two of the above.
> .
> ..
> .
> ..


I was thinking more about all kinds of triangles with a perfect diagonal...

Like so:

.
...

.
..
....

.
..
...
.....


And any combination of these.

Ofcourse the idea could be expanded to try and see if any set of pixels
describe a bresenham line algorithm... but then if the line is too flat it
might assume the bitmap ment a diagonal... while in reality it are just two
flat surfaces...

So describing a more flat-like diagonal like... might upset any physics
simulations.... or maybe not... I guess it depends on the intention of the
form of the bitmap.

For a ball or any circular/spline like looking bitmap it would make sense...

But I can also imagine cases where it's not round/circular/spline like but
simply two squares right next to each other with 1 pixel height
difference... so maybe it appear as if it were a diagonal might be wrong

So that's why I would limit it to perfect diagonals only with an stepping of
dx/dy = 1

I think in those cases it's pretty clear that it was probably ment as a
diagonal.

For now I am not going to include it in the contest, because it might become
to difficult and I would to move on a bit, but maybe later/in the future I
give this a looksy/try

Bye,
Skybuck.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Programming Contest: BoxifyMe Skybuck Flying Java 33 12-15-2010 04:18 PM
C (functional programming) VS C++ (object oriented programming) Joe Mayo C Programming 168 10-22-2007 01:00 AM
Can Your Programming Language Do This? Joel on functional programming and briefly on anonymous functions! Casey Hawthorne Python 4 08-04-2006 05:23 AM
Wireless PEAP/MSCHAPV2 client programming question Jim Howard Wireless Networking 6 07-02-2005 11:53 AM
systems programming versus application programming Matt Java 35 07-22-2004 08:10 AM



Advertisments