Hi Зверев On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Зверев Владимир Сергеевич < vladimir.zverev@urfu.ru> wrote:

Hi, Dirk Visualisation graph in 3D is a quite specific task. May be, this link will help you

https://www.westgrid.ca/files/3Dgraphs-WestGridWebinar-May24.2016.pdf

Thanks for the link! I used NX for a project a while ago, and we did some experiments with 3D layouts, that why I was hoping GT would be able to do something similar. The 3D graphics part is the easy one for us, that' what we do every day, so I wouldn't use VTK for this (not really what it's designed for anyway). Yours Dirk

Hi Tiago, On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de> wrote:

3D layouts are not implemented in graph-tool at all.

That's more or less what I expected, thanks for the confirmation. Is there a fundamental problem with it, or is it just something that has not been a priority? In general force-directed layouts are pretty agnostic concerning dimensionality, do you think it would be difficult to add? If I understand the code correctly (big if ;) positions are just vector<double> properties, and the 2D part is more a convention than anything else. This is obviously only partially true for the QuadTree part in SFDP, which would have to be an octree for 3D, but it might still work at reduced efficiency. Are there other limitations that you can think of from the top of your head that would make 3D layouts infeasible? If I can find some time over the summer I might play with it... Thanks! Dirk

I would say that it can be helpful when you can interactively 'fly through' your data. It is possible to use a 'flying' interface with a game engine type backend to allow interactive exploration of massive datasets. I agree that it is mostly pointless for static rendering. Peter -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [graph-tool] 3D Layouts? Local Time: May 22, 2017 4:19 PM UTC Time: May 22, 2017 3:19 PM From: tiago@skewed.de To: graph-tool@skewed.de On 22.05.2017 15:46, Dirk Reiners wrote:

s there a fundamental problem with it, or is it just something that has not been a priority? In general force-directed layouts are pretty agnostic concerning dimensionality, do you think it would be difficult to add? If I understand the code correctly (big if ;) positions are just vector<double> properties, and the 2D part is more a convention than anything else. This is obviously only partially true for the QuadTree part in SFDP, which would have to be an octree for 3D, but it might still work at reduced efficiency. Are there other limitations that you can think of from the top of your head that would make 3D layouts infeasible?

Modifying sfdp_layout() to n-dimensions is indeed straightforward. The issue is modifying the actual drawing (i.e. graph_draw()) to 3D. We use cairo in the backend, which is strictly 2D. Implementing 3D would require the use of something else entirely, like OpenGL. I have no desire of ever implementing 3D drawing, because I think it is not really helpful in the majority of cases. Best, Tiago -- Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de> _______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list graph-tool@skewed.de https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool

For smaller graphs it shouldn't be a problem to get them visualised this way with this python module: https://patrickfuller.github.io/jgraph/ example: https://patrickfuller.github.io/jgraph/examples/github.html Cheers, Felix https://keybase.io/flxvctr https://about.me/flxvctr On 27 May 2017 at 9:13:33 pm, Tiago de Paula Peixoto (tiago@skewed.de) wrote: On 27.05.2017 11:08, Peter Clarke wrote:

I would say that it can be helpful when you can interactively 'fly through' your data. It is possible to use a 'flying' interface with a game engine type backend to allow interactive exploration of massive datasets. In my opinion that is the kind of thing you see in movies, but is hardly useful in the real world. A network that looks like a huge hairball in 2D will also look like a hairball in 3D.

-- Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de> _______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list graph-tool@skewed.de https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool

Hi Guys, I understand your concern, and yes, 3D is not a panacea. But there are some studies that show when it is also displayed in 3D stereo path following tasks can be more efficient than in 2D. Not a universal thing, but some hints. I think to a large extend it also depends on your display device. Just displaying a 3D model on a 2D screen is not going to be much better. My display device is a little different: http://assets. inarkansas.com/66594/ualr-vr2-110.JPG ;) But thanks for the answer! Dirk On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de> wrote:

On 27.05.2017 11:08, Peter Clarke wrote:

...

I would say that it can be helpful when you can interactively 'fly through' your data. It is possible to use a 'flying' interface with a game engine type backend to allow interactive exploration of massive datasets. In my opinion that is the kind of thing you see in movies, but is hardly useful in the real world. A network that looks like a huge hairball in 2D will also look like a hairball in 3D.

-- Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de>

_______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list graph-tool@skewed.de https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool