From 9901f5b01b98eed21ff1ba37b9d5377b95a4a1e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Motiejus=20Jak=C5=A1tys?= Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:12:25 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] restructuring --- II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex b/II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex index 232013a..d5b17cc 100644 --- a/II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex +++ b/II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ version will help explain some of the deficiencies in the reviewed algorithms. \label{fig:crossing} \end{figure} -\section{Comparison algorithms and parameters} +\subsection{Comparison algorithms and parameters} \label{sec:algs-and-params} To visually evaluate the Žeimena sample, examples for {\DP} and {\VW} @@ -204,11 +204,13 @@ value from the other, so the results are comparable?), {\DP} tolerance was arbitrarily squared and fed to {\VW}. To author's eye, this provides comparable and reasonable results, though could be researched. -Chaikin's smoothing algorithm was generated using $nIterations = 5$. That -number was chosen for better visual appeal at the expense of computational -power. Smaller number iterations would cause retain visible angles, whereas -larger number of iterations, like 5 (PostGIS supports values from 1 to 5), -causes the resulting lines to be very smooth. +Chaikin's smoothing algorithm was generated using $nIterations = 5$. Number of +iterations is a trade-off between visual appeal and required computational +power to execute the algorithm. PostGIS supports values between 1 and 5. Because +computational power for this analysis is not a concern, the maximum value was chosen, +making the resulting smoothened lines most visually appealing. + +\subsection{Visual comparison results} As can be observed in table~\ref{tab:comparison-zeimena} on page~\pageref{tab:comparison-zeimena}, both simplification algorithms convert