School of Computing and EngineeringDepartment of Informatics
In-course Assignment Speci cation
Module Code and Title: CFT2112 Studio 1
Assignment No. and Title: 2: 2D Graphics Application
Assessment Tutor: Dr Minsi Chen Weighting Towards Module Grade: 60%
Date Set: Thursday 18/01/2018 Submission Date: Thursday 26/04/2018
Learning Outcome(s) covered in this assignment:
Knowledge and Understanding
1. Have a sound knowledge of basic scripting and programming concepts
2. Be aware of typical software structures and design/development procedures
Abilities
1. Design appropriate technical solutions to a problem or brief, including recognising
the risks/safety issues related to their safe operation
2. Construct prototype software
3. Test and evaluate a developed software prototype
Level of Collaboration:
This is an individual assignment.
Collaboration is not allowed.
1
1 Introduction
This assignment consists of a set of programming exercises on building the fundamentals
of a 2D graphics pipeline. You will be given a VS2015 project titled TinyRaster which
contains a partially completed software rasteriser for 2D graphics. Your objective is to
complete the exercises speci ed in Section 2. Each exercise has a maximum score you
can achieve as speci ed in the brackets. This score also indicates the relative di culty of
each challenge.
In order to develop a robust and correct solution to each exercise, you must investigate
the relevant topics using both lecture materials and your own reading. You will be given
guidance on creating solutions to Ex1.1, Ex2.1 and Ex2.2 as part of the tutorials. Please
make sure you carefully follow the tutorial materials when they are released.
2 Part I: Programming Exercises (65%)
2.1 Ex1: 2D Line Rasterisation
Ex1.1 (Max 10pts) Complete the implementation of Rasterizer::DrawLine2D method.
This method currently consists of a partially implemented Bresenham algorithm.
You must extend its implementation so that it is capable of drawing 2D lines with
arbitrary gradient (slope).
Ex1.2 (Max 5pts) Extend the implementation of Rasterizer::DrawLine2D so that it
is capable of drawing lines based on a given thickness.
2.2 Ex2: 2D Polygon Rasterisation
Ex2.1 (Max 5pts) Implement the Rasterizer::DrawUnfilledPolygon2D method so
that it is capable of drawing an un lled polygon, i.e. only the edges of a polygon are
rasterised. Please note, in order to complete this exercise, you must rst complete
Ex1.1 since DrawLine2D method is reusable here.
Ex2.2 (Max 10pts) Implement the Rasterizer::ScanlineFillPolygon2D method method
so that it is capable of drawing a solidly lled polygon.
2.3 Advanced Operations
Ex1 (Max 5pts) Extend the implementation of Rasterizer::DrawLine2D so that it
is capable of interpolating colour across a line when each end-point has di erent
colours.
Ex2 (Max 5pts) Extend Rasterizer::ScanlineFillPolygon2D method so that it is
capable of alpha blending, i.e. draw translucent polygons.
Ex3 (Max 15pts) Implement Rasterizer::ScanlineInterpolatedFillPolygon2D method
so that it is capable of performing interpolated lling.
Ex4 (Max 5pts) Implement Rasterizer::DrawCircle2D method so that it can draw
a lled circle.
2
3 Part II: Report (35%)
In addition to completing the programming tasks, you are also to required to summarise
and discuss the results of your work in a short technical report. The word count limit of
your report is 500 words and the smallest font size is 11pts.
Your report should roughly consist of the following core sections:
Introduction: Inform. your readers what this report is about.
Methods and Results: Present how you approach to the programming tasks along
with results.
Discussion: Provide a thoughtful analysis of your work based on the presented results.
What are the strengths and weaknesses?
References: List the materials including books, journal papers and website that you
used in your work. Please note, this section does not count towards the word limit.
The writing style. must be appropriate to university level work. You should use concise
and precise language to avoid verbosity. Timely citation must be used if claims and ideas
are not your own work.
APA referencing style. is recommended for this assignment. Please refer to https:
//library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/ for more detail.
4 Submission
The solution to the exercises must be uploaded to CourseResource by 23:59 Thursday
26/04/2018. A submission point will be made available two weeks before the deadline.
In addition, you must package your solution including source and executable according
the following requirements:
Your package must be compressed into a ZIP le using the naming convention
STUDENTID TinyRaster.zip.
Your package must contain the following directories and contents
{ Source - for source and Visual Studio project les
{ Executable - for standalone executable(s)
{ Your report in PDF format (please do not submit MS Word le)
All standalone executables must be built for RELEASE; test these thoroughly be-
fore making your submission
The Source directory must contain the entire source code and the corresponding
solution/project les
To reduce the le size, intermediate les generated by Visual Studio should be
removed from your submission
3
5 Assessment and Grading Criteria
5.1 Assessment Criteria
Each exercise listed in section 2 will be assessed according to criteria listed in the table
below:
Criterion Weight
Correctness and robustness 60%
Techniques and methods 30%
Code and Structure 10%
Table 1: The assessment critera for each exercise.
The correctness and robustness of your submitted solutions will be evaluated using
the test cases de ned in the TinyRaster framework. In turn, you can use these test cases
as a means of testing your implementation.
For your code to be e ectively assessed, you must provide clear and concise comments
in your code to explain the techniques and methods adopted for solving the exercises.
4
5.2 Grading Criteria
Grades Criteria
80-100 The submitted work is exceptional and shows a comprehensive aware-
ness of the dimensions of the topic. The solution demonstrates a level of
novelty and o ers an extension to existing techniques. Discussion and
analysis are presented in a scholarly and scienti c manner. Accurate
data and strong evidences are used to support the discussion of any
novel approach.
70-79 The submitted work is excellent and shows a full awareness of the di-
mensions of the topic. The solution is highly optimised and demon-
strates individuality and creativity. Discussion o ers insightful infor-
mation and are well presented. Analysis is supported by accurate data
and resources.
Correctness: Your provided solutions are not only correct for all test
cases, but also demonstrate additional features with high com-
plexity and a certain degree of originality.
Techniques and Methods: Your implementation is functional and
fully optimised; you are fully aware of the runtime resource man-
agement and computational e ciency; the code base demon-
strates some more advanced usage of OO design paradigm and
is extensible.
Code: Excellent use of object-oriented programming paradigm; new
functionalities and their implementation fully adhere to code
reusability and extensibility.
60-69 The submitted work demonstrates some advanced techniques and in-
cludes other relevant aspects that shows a clear awareness of the di-
mensions of the topic. The implementation is e cient and scalable.
Discussion and analysis are critical and well structured; data and re-
sources are accurate.
Correctness: Solutions and results are completely correct for all cases.
Techniques and Methods: Your implementation is functional; you
are fully aware of the runtime resource management and com-
putational e ciency; the code base demonstrates some advanced
usage of OO design paradigm and is extensible.
Code: Very good use of object-oriented style. coding; the code is highly
reusable and extensible.
5
50-59 The submitted work demonstrates advanced features and the implemen-
tation. The solution evidences a clear understanding of the problems
and solutions, but it lacks in depth analysis and discussion.
Correctness: Solutions and results are correct for a majority of cases,
and only exhibit minor aws and limitations in rare cases.
Techniques and Methods: Your implementation is functional; some
consideration was made to runtime and resources e ciency by us-
ing adequate data structure and algorithms; the code base demon-
strates a good level of object oriented concept.
Code: Good use of object-oriented style. coding; implementation is
clear to the reader; little redundancy in code and good code
reusability.
40-49 The submitted work is functional and exhibiting very limited results
required for the pass grade. Although su cient understanding in the
topic is shown, it lacks analysis.
Correctness: Solutions and results exhibit major aws and limita-
tions.
Techniques and Methods: Your implementation is functional; little
consideration was made to runtime and resource; the code base is
not extensible.
Code and Structure: Poor use of object-oriented style. coding; im-
plementation is di cult to follow for the reader; noticeable re-
dundancy in code.
30-39 The submitted work is clearly de cient. It does not meet all the re-
quirements for the pass grade set in the assignment speci cation. The
work does not evidence a su cient understanding in the subject.
0-29 The submitted work is not relevant to the topic. There is little evi-
dence that attempts were made to complete the work to the minimum
standard.
NS Non-submission