Dealing with imprecision in CAD drawing

I have a CAD application, that allows user to draw lines and polygons and all that.

One thorny problem that I face is user drawing can be highly imprecise, for example, a user might want to draw two rectangles that are connected to each other. Hence there should be one line shared by two rectangles. However, it's easy for user to, instead of draw a line, draw two lines that are very close to each other, so close to each other that when look from the screen, you would be mistaken that they are the same line, except that they aren't when you zoom in a little bit.

My application would require user to properly draw the lines ( or my preprocessing must be able to do auto correction), or else my internal algorithm (let's call it The Algorithm) would not be able to process the inputs correctly.

What is the best strategy to combat this kind of problem? I am thinking about rounding the point coordinates to a certain degree of precision, but although I can't exactly pinpoint the problem of this approach, but I feel that this is not the correct way of doing things, that this will introduce a new set of problem.

Edit: For the sake of argument the snapping isn't an available option. For the matter, all sorts of "input-side" guidance are 开发者_如何转开发not available. The correction must be done via preprocessing on my code, when the drawing is finished, but just before I submit it to my algorithm.

Crazy restriction, you say. But a user can construct their input either in my application, or they can construct their input in other CAD software and then submit to my engine to do the calculation. I can't control how they input in other CAD software.

Edit 2:I can let user to specify the "cluster radius" to occur, but the important point is, I would need to make sure that my preprocessing algorithm is consistent and won't really introduce a new set of problem.

Any idea?

One problem I see is that your clustering/snapping algorithm would have to decide on its own which point to move onto which other point.

During live input snapping is simple: the first point stays put, the second point is snapped onto the first. If in offline mode you get a bunch of points that you know should be snapped together, you have no idea where the resulting point should lie. Calculate the average, possibly resulting in a completely new point? Choose the most central point out of all the candidates? Pick one at random? Try to align your point with some other points on the x/y/z-axis?

If your program allows any user interaction at all, you could detect point clusters that might be candidates for merging, and present the user with different merge target points to choose from.
Otherwise, you could make this kind of behaviour configurable: take a merge radius ("if two or more poins are within n units of one another...") and a merging algorithm ("... merge them into the most central of the points given") as parameters and read them from a config file.

Snapping points. User should be able to snap to end points (and many more) then, when you detect a snap, just change the point user clicked to snap point point. Check AutoCAD, functions line End, Middle and so on.

EDIT: If you want offline snapping then you just need to check every pair of points if they are near each other. The problem is that this in NP-problem so it will take a lot of time as you can't really get under O(n^2) time complexity. This algorithm you need should be under "clustering".

EDIT2: I think you shouldn't consider that input data is bad. But if you reallllllly want to do this, simples way is to take each point, check if there are other points in users defined radius, if yes find whole group that should merge into one point, find avg of coordinates of points and point all of them to that specific point. But remember - most designers KNOW what are snap points for and if they don't use them they have valid idea for that.

Your basic problem seems to me (I hope I understood correctly) to determine if two lines are the "same" line.

Out of my own experience your feeling is correct, rounding the coordinates in the input might prove not to be a good idea.

Maybe you should leave the coordinates in the input as they are but implement your function let's name it IsSameLine That you use in "The Algorithm" (who among others determines if two rectangles are connected if i understood your description correctly).

IsSameLine could transform the endpoints of the input lines from source coordinates to screen coordinates considering a certain (possibly configurable) screen resolution and check if they are the same in screen coordinates.

I.e. let's say you have an input file with the following extent (lowerleft) (upperRight) ((10,10), (24,53)). The question would be how far apart would be points (11,15) and (11.1, 15.1) if drawn at "zoom to extents" level on a 1600x1200 pixels screen. So you can determine a transform from source coordinates to "screen coordinates". You use then this transformation in IsSameLine as described above.

I'm not sure however this would be actually a good solution for you.

Another (maybe better?) possibility is to implement IsSameLine to return true if the points of the two lines are at maximum epsilon distance apart. The epsilon could have a default value computed based on the extent of the input vector data and probably it would be a good idea to give the user the possibility to give another value for it.