Comments on: treemaps

By: kochumvk

kochumvk — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:10:52 +0000

I am sad that I am not able to show u what I have made!.
Now that I will be back on your site again and again even if i don’t have a trouble:)
just to see what new you have done!

By: nicoptere

nicoptere — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:06:25 +0000

ok,

no problem, glad I could “help”.
this MaxRect bin packer looks very interesting too :)

By: kochumvk

kochumvk — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 07:39:27 +0000

I did it the other way. I am now not using tremap. Instead plot the inner nodes and wrapped outer ones around it. used MaxRect Bin packing. Slow but works!

Thanks for your valuable time.

By: nicoptere

nicoptere — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:48:36 +0000

( interesting project :) )
well no, actually it works the other way round : you give it the area to fill (so you have it already ), values to pack, then it normalizes the values and tries to find a layout with the best ratios to fill the area.

By: kochumvk

kochumvk — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:38:12 +0000

Hey , Is there a way to calculate the minimum area required for packing?

By: kochumvk

kochumvk — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:27 +0000

What I am doing is a 3D visualization of a software system( you can think of a file folder structure even). I am using your stuff + away 3D 4. an added dimension is giving me kicks and pain at same time.

some folder may have 500 big files another may have 2 tiny ones… what not , even a 1000 average files in a folder will be another candidate.

By: nicoptere

nicoptere — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:31:36 +0000

or maybe there’s a better implementation somewhere ;)
it really depends on what your set is ; with a small amount of very different data – say a 3 items’ set with 10, .2 & 0.005 values – there’s not much you can do : you’ll end up with thin stripes.
perhaps nesting the data within rectangles of ratio ~1 could help… will make it more complex and won’t necessarily solve the problem.

I can’t really figure out what you’re intending to do but I’d like to see that :)

By: kochumvk

kochumvk — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:12:58 +0000

Thanks for your quick reply:)

I am using Squarified layout. I think I am demanding too much from the algorithm.

I am trying to avoid very small relative weights now.
Since I am visualizing a code structure, approximate sizing of rectangles are required, so making multiple treeMap Items with same weight will not work. Just my thought.

By: nicoptere

nicoptere — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:01:06 +0000

hey, thanks :)
as far as I can remember, it’s the Ratio issue ; first make sure you use the squarified layout.
then algo will try to make the rect as close as possible to a Ratio of 1 ( 32 * 32 rather than 10 * 100 ).
but still it’s not perfect, sorry about that.
may be you can also cheat : create a custom TreemapItem and give them the same value.
this will create a layout with rectangles that have the same ratio and you can store the actual value as a parameter of your custom TreemapItem.

By: kochumvk

kochumvk — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:50:14 +0000

Great Work .

However I am facing an issue with this one.
When I Visualize complex structures, It ends up with a lot of thin long rectangles (thin strips). This limits scope of visualization inside that rectangle.

Is there a way to avoid such thin long strips. reduction in accuracy is not a problem to some extent.

example: a 32 x 32 px rectangle is much desirable than a 100 x 10 px one :)