Related
Recently I've faced with one little but majour problem: is point on the edge of polygon be inside polygon?
What I mean - currently I am trying to implement 2D geometry library in JS for custom needs and there is method, lets say polygon.contains(point).
So my question is - when point is situated on one of the polygon's edges - as result the point is inside or outside of the polygon? Additional question for vertices: if point is right on top of polygon's vertex - is it inside or outside?
Algo that I've used is taken from here and looks like:
int pnpoly(int nvert, float *vertx, float *verty, float testx, float testy)
{
int i, j, c = 0;
for (i = 0, j = nvert-1; i < nvert; j = i++) {
if ( ((verty[i]>testy) != (verty[j]>testy)) &&
(testx < (vertx[j]-vertx[i]) * (testy-verty[i]) / (verty[j] - verty[i]) + vertx[i]) )
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
Also, there is a quote from the site:
PNPOLY partitions the plane into points inside the polygon and points outside the polygon. Points that are on the boundary are classified as either inside or outside.
And it is total true, in some situations it returns TRUE, and in some FALSE.
Actually, this is not what I'm needed. So my question is beginning to expand - which behaviour is correct when point is on the edge of polygon - is it inside or outside. And do you have a better algo with predictable behaviour?
UPDATE:
Okay, I'm found another algo, which is called "winding number" and to test this I'm using only polygons and points with integer values:
function isLeft(p0, p1, p2){
return ( Math.round((p1.x - p0.x) * (p2.y - p0.y)) - Math.round((p2.x - p0.x) * (p1.y - p0.y)) );
}
function polygonContainsPoint(polygon, point){
var i, j, pointi, pointj;
var count = 0;
var vertices = polygon.vertices;
var length = vertices.length;
for (i = 0; i < length; i++){
j = (i + 1) % length;
pointi = vertices[i];
pointj = vertices[j];
if (pointi.y > point.y){
if (pointj.y <= point.y && (isLeft(pointi, pointj, point) < 0)){
--count;
}
} else if (pointj.y > point.y && (isLeft(pointi, pointj, point) > 0)){
++count;
}
}
return 0 !== count;
}
As you can see there is no division; multiplication is wrapped into round() method, so there is no way for floating point errors. Anyway, I'm getting same result as with even-odd algo.
And I think I started to see the "pattern" in this strange behaviour: the left and top edges may tell that point is inside of polygon, but when you're tryed to put point on one of the right or bottom edges - it may return false.
This is not good for me. Maybe some of you know some algo with more predictable behaviour?
The simple answer to the question is that a point on the edge is neither inside, nor outside of polygon, it is on the boundary of the polygon - the third option. But typically it does not matter (as supported by your quotations), and what matters is to avoid the errors in classification of points, which are really deep inside or outside.
Point-in-polygon problem is sometimes called the Parity Algorithm:
Let r be the horizontal half-line whose left endpoint is the test point.
Count the number of intersections between r and the edges of the polygon. If that number is odd, then the test point lies within the polygon, and if the number is even, then it lies outside the polygon.
Here are some examples:
(a), (b) - not-degenerate cases, where half-line either does not intersect the edge or crosses it.
(c), (d), (e), (f) - four degenerate cases that have to be taken into account.
A correct answer is obtained if cases (c) and (e) are counted as one crossing and cases (d) and (f) are not counted at all. If we write the code for the above algorithm, we realize that a substantial amount of the efforts is required to cover the four degenerated cases.
With more complex algorithms and especially in 3D, the amount of efforts to support degenerate cases increases dramatically.
The above problem and explanation appear in the introduction to Simulation of Simplicity article by Herbert Edelsbrunner and Ernst Peter Mucke. And proposed solution is to get rid of all degenerations by virtual minimal perturbation of input points. After that a tested point will never be on the edge, but only inside or outside of polygon.
Heading
I need to find the indices of the polygon nearest to a point
So in this case the ouput would be 4 and 0. Such that if the red point is added I know to where to place the vertex in the array. Does anyone know where to start?
(Sorry if the title is misleading, I wasnt sure how to phrase it properly)
In this case the ouput would be 0 and 1, rather than the closest 4.
Point P lies on the segment AB, if two simple conditions are met together:
AP x PB = 0 //cross product, vectors are collinear or anticollinear, P lies on AB line
AP . PB > 0 //scalar product, exclude anticollinear case to ensure that P is inside the segment
So you can check all sequential vertice pairs (pseudocode):
if (P.X-V[i].X)*(V[i+1].Y-P.Y)-(P.Y-V[i].Y)*(V[i+1].X-P.X)=0 then
//with some tolerance if point coordinates are float
if (P.X-V[i].X)*(V[i+1].X-P.X)+(P.Y-V[i].Y)*(V[i+1].Y-P.Y)>0
then P belongs to (i,i+1) segment
This is fast direct (brute-force) method.
Special data structures exist in computer geometry to quickly select candidate segments - for example, r-tree. But these complicated methods will gain for long (many-point) polylines and for case where the same polygon is used many times (so pre-treatment is negligible)
I'll assume that the new point is to be added to an edge. So you are given the coordinates of a point a = (x, y) and you want to find the indices of the edge on which it lies. Let's call the vertices of that edge b, c. Observe that the area of the triangle abc is zero.
So iterate over all edges and choose the one that minimizes area of triangle abc where a is your point and bc is current edge.
a = input point
min_area = +infinity
closest_edge = none
n = number of vertices in polygon
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{ b = poly[ i - 1 ];
c = poly[ i % n ];
if(area(a, b, c) < min_area)
{ min_area = area(a, b, c);
closest_edge = bc
}
}
You can calculate area using:
/* Computes area x 2 */
int area(a, b, c)
{ int ans = 0;
ans = (a.x*b.y + b.x*x.y + c.x*a.y) - (a.y*b.x + b.y*c.x + c.y*a.x);
return ABS(ans);
}
I think you would be better off trying to compare the distance from the actual point to a comparable point on the line. The closest comparable point would be the one that forms a perpendicular line like this. a is your point in question and b is the comparable point on the line line between the two vertices that you will check distance to.
However there's another method which I think might be more optimal for this case (as it seems most of your test points lie pretty close to the desired line already). Instead of find the perpendicular line point we can simply check the point on the line that has the same X value like this. b in this case is a lot easier to calculate:
X = a.X - 0.X;
Slope = (1.Y - 0.Y) / (1.X - 0.X);
b.X = 0.X + X;
b.Y = 0.Y + (X * Slope);
And the distance is simply the difference in Y values between a and b:
distance = abs(a.Y - b.Y);
One thing to keep in mind is that this method will become more inaccurate as the slope increases as well as become infinite when the slope is undefined. I would suggest flipping it when the slope > 1 and checking for a b that lies at the same y rather than x. That would look like this:
Y = a.Y - 0.Y;
Inverse_Slope = (1.X - 0.X) / (1.Y - 0.Y);
b.Y = 0.Y + Y;
b.X = 0.Y + (Y * Inverse_Slope);
distance = abs(a.X - b.X);
Note: You should also check whether b.X is between 0.X and 1.X and b.Y is between 0.Y and 1.Y in the second case. That way we are not checking against points that dont lie on the line segment.
I admit I don't know the perfect terminology when it comes to this kind of thing so it might be a little confusing, but hope this helps!
Rather than checking if the point is close to an edge with a prescribed tolerance, as MBo suggested, you can fin the edge with the shortest distance to the point. The distance must be computed with respect to the line segment, not the whole line.
How do you compute this distance ? Let P be the point and Q, R two edge endpoints.
Let t be in range [0,1], you need to minimize
D²(P, QR) = D²(P, Q + t QR) = (PQ + t QR)² = PQ² + 2 t PQ.QR + t² QR².
The minimum is achieved when the derivative cancels, i.e. t = - PQ.QR / QR². If this quantity exceeds the range [0,1], just clamp it to 0 or 1.
To summarize,
if t <= 0, D² = PQ²
if t >= 1, D² = PR²
otherwise, D² = PQ² - t² QR²
Loop through all the vertices, calculate the distance of that vertex to the point, find the minimum.
double min_dist = Double.MAX_VALUE;
int min_index=-1;
for(int i=0;i<num_vertices;++i) {
double d = dist(vertices[i],point);
if(d<min_dist) {
min_dist = d;
min_index = i;
}
}
Actually this is a classic problem as SO user Victor put it (in another SO question regarding which tasks to ask during an interview).
I couldn't do it in an hour (sigh) so what is the algorithm that calculates the number of integer points within a triangle?
EDIT: Assume that the vertices are at integer coordinates. (otherwise it becomes a problem of finding all points within the triangle and then subtracting all the floating points to be left with only the integer points; a less elegant problem).
Assuming the vertices are at integer coordinates, you can get the answer by constructing a rectangle around the triangle as explained in Kyle Schultz's An Investigation of Pick's Theorem.
For a j x k rectangle, the number of interior points is
I = (j – 1)(k – 1).
For the 5 x 3 rectangle below, there are 8 interior points.
(source: uga.edu)
For triangles with a vertical leg (j) and a horizontal leg (k) the number of interior points is given by
I = ((j – 1)(k – 1) - h) / 2
where h is the number of points interior to the rectangle that are coincident to the hypotenuse of the triangles (not the length).
(source: uga.edu)
For triangles with a vertical side or a horizontal side, the number of interior points (I) is given by
(source: uga.edu)
where j, k, h1, h2, and b are marked in the following diagram
(source: uga.edu)
Finally, the case of triangles with no vertical or horizontal sides can be split into two sub-cases, one where the area surrounding the triangle forms three triangles, and one where the surrounding area forms three triangles and a rectangle (see the diagrams below).
The number of interior points (I) in the first sub-case is given by
(source: uga.edu)
where all the variables are marked in the following diagram
(source: uga.edu)
The number of interior points (I) in the second sub-case is given by
(source: uga.edu)
where all the variables are marked in the following diagram
(source: uga.edu)
Pick's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick%27s_theorem) states that the surface of a simple polygon placed on integer points is given by:
A = i + b/2 - 1
Here A is the surface of the triangle, i is the number of interior points and b is the number of boundary points. The number of boundary points b can be calculated easily by summing the greatest common divisor of the slopes of each line:
b = gcd(abs(p0x - p1x), abs(p0y - p1y))
+ gcd(abs(p1x - p2x), abs(p1y - p2y))
+ gcd(abs(p2x - p0x), abs(p2y - p0y))
The surface can also be calculated. For a formula which calculates the surface see https://stackoverflow.com/a/14382692/2491535 . Combining these known values i can be calculated by:
i = A + 1 - b/2
My knee-jerk reaction would be to brute-force it:
Find the maximum and minimum extent of the triangle in the x and y directions.
Loop over all combinations of integer points within those extents.
For each set of points, use one of the standard tests (Same side or Barycentric techniques, for example) to see if the point lies within the triangle. Since this sort of computation is a component of algorithms for detecting intersections between rays/line segments and triangles, you can also check this link for more info.
This is called the "Point in the Triangle" test.
Here is an article with several solutions to this problem: Point in the Triangle Test.
A common way to check if a point is in a triangle is to find the vectors connecting the point to each of the triangle's three vertices and sum the angles between those vectors. If the sum of the angles is 2*pi (360-degrees) then the point is inside the triangle, otherwise it is not.
Ok I will propose one algorithm, it won't be brilliant, but it will work.
First, we will need a point in triangle test. I propose to use the "Barycentric Technique" as explained in this excellent post:
http://www.blackpawn.com/texts/pointinpoly/default.html
Now to the algorithm:
let (x1,y1) (x2,y2) (x3,y3) be the triangle vertices
let ymin = floor(min(y1,y2,y3)) ymax = ceiling(max(y1,y2,y3)) xmin = floor(min(x1,x2,x3)) ymax = ceiling(max(x1,x2,3))
iterating from xmin to xmax and ymin to ymax you can enumerate all the integer points in the rectangular region that contains the triangle
using the point in triangle test you can test for each point in the enumeration to see if it's on the triangle.
It's simple, I think it can be programmed in less than half hour.
I only have half an answer for a non-brute-force method. If the vertices were integer, you could reduce it to figuring out how to find how many integer points the edges intersect. With that number and the area of the triangle (Heron's formula), you can use Pick's theorem to find the number of interior integer points.
Edit: for the other half, finding the integer points that intersect the edge, I suspect that it's the greatest common denominator between the x and y difference between the points minus one, or if the distance minus one if one of the x or y differences is zero.
Here's another method, not necessarily the best, but sure to impress any interviewer.
First, call the point with the lowest X co-ord 'L', the point with the highest X co-ord 'R', and the remaining point 'M' (Left, Right, and Middle).
Then, set up two instances of Bresenham's line algorithm. Parameterize one instance to draw from L to R, and the second to draw from L to M. Run the algorithms simultaneously for X = X[L] to X[M]. But instead of drawing any lines or turning on any pixels, count the pixels between the lines.
After stepping from X[L] to X[M], change the parameters of the second Bresenham to draw from M to R, then continue to run the algorithms simultaneously for X = X[M] to X[R].
This is very similar to the solution proposed by Erwin Smout 7 hours ago, but using Bresenham instead of a line-slope formula.
I think that in order to count the columns of pixels, you will need to determine whether M lies above or below the line LR, and of course special cases will arise when two points have the same X or Y co-ordinate. But by the time this comes up, your interviewer will be suitably awed and you can move on to the next question.
Quick n'dirty pseudocode:
-- Declare triangle
p1 2DPoint = (x1, y1);
p2 2DPoint = (x2, y2);
p3 2DPoint = (x3, y3);
triangle [2DPoint] := [p1, p2, p3];
-- Bounding box
xmin float = min(triangle[][0]);
xmax float = max(triangle[][0]);
ymin float = min(triangle[][1]);
ymax float = max(triangle[][1]);
result [[float]];
-- Points in bounding box might be inside the triangle
for x in xmin .. xmax {
for y in ymin .. ymax {
if a line starting in (x, y) and going in any direction crosses one, and only one, of the lines between the points in the triangle, or hits exactly one of the corners of the triangle {
result[result.count] = (x, y);
}
}
}
I have this idea -
Let A(x1, y1), B(x2, y2) and C(x3, y3) be the vertices of the triangle. Let 'count' be the number of integer points forming the triangle.
If we need the points on the triangle edges then using Euclidean Distance formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_distance, the length of all three sides can be ascertained.
The sum of length of all three sides - 3, would give that count.
To find the number of points inside the triangle we need to use a triangle fill algorithm and instead of doing the actual rendering i.e. executing drawpixel(x,y), just go through the loops and keep updating the count as we loop though.
A triangle fill algorithm from
Fundamentals of Computer Graphics by
Peter Shirley,Michael Ashikhmin
should help. Its referred here http://www.gidforums.com/t-20838.html
cheers
I'd go like this :
Take the uppermost point of the triangle (the one with the highest Y coordinate). There are two "slopes" starting at that point. It's not the general solution, but for easy visualisation, think of one of both "going to the left" (decreasing x coordinates) and the other one "going to the right".
From those two slopes and any given Y coordinate less than the highest point, you should be able to compute the number of integer points that appear within the bounds set by the slopes. Iterating over decreasing Y coordinates, add all those number of points together.
Stop when your decreasing Y coordinates reach the second-highest point of the triangle.
You have now counted all points "above the second-highest point", and you are now left with the problem of "counting all the points within some (much smaller !!!) triangle, of which you know that its upper side parallels the X-axis.
Repeat the same procedure, but now with taking the "leftmost point" instead of the "uppermost", and with proceedding "by increasing x", instead of by "decreasing y".
After that, you are left with the problem of counting all the integer points within a, once again much smaller, triangle, of which you know that its upper side parallels the X-axis, and its left side parallels the Y-axis.
Keep repeating (recurring), until you count no points in the triangle you're left with.
(Have I now made your homework for you ?)
(wierd) pseudo-code for a bit-better-than-brute-force (it should have O(n))
i hope you understand what i mean
n=0
p1,p2,p3 = order points by xcoordinate(p1,p2,p3)
for int i between p1.x and p2.x do
a = (intersection point of the line p1-p2 and the line with x==i).y
b = (intersection point of the line p1-p3 and the line with x==i).y
n += number of integers between floats (a, b)
end
for i between p2.x+1 and p3.x do
a = (intersection point of the line p2-p3 and the line with x==i).y
b = (intersection point of the line p1-p3 and the line with x==i).y
n += number of integers between floats (a, b)
end
this algorithm is rather easy to extend for vertices of type float (only needs some round at the "for i.." part, with a special case for p2.x being integer (there, rounded down=rounded up))
and there are some opportunities for optimization in a real implementation
Here is a Python implementation of #Prabhala's solution:
from collections import namedtuple
from fractions import gcd
def get_points(vertices):
Point = namedtuple('Point', 'x,y')
vertices = [Point(x, y) for x, y in vertices]
a, b, c = vertices
triangle_area = abs((a.x - b.x) * (a.y + b.y) + (b.x - c.x) * (b.y + c.y) + (c.x - a.x) * (c.y + a.y))
triangle_area /= 2
triangle_area += 1
interior = abs(gcd(a.x - b.x, a.y - b.y)) + abs(gcd(b.x - c.x, b.y - c.y)) + abs(gcd(c.x - a.x, c.y - a.y))
interior /= 2
return triangle_area - interior
Usage:
print(get_points([(-1, -1), (1, 0), (0, 1)])) # 1
print(get_points([[2, 3], [6, 9], [10, 160]])) # 289
I found a quite useful link which clearly explains the solution to this problem. I am weak in coordinate geometry so I used this solution and coded it in Java which works (at least for the test cases I tried..)
Link
public int points(int[][] vertices){
int interiorPoints = 0;
double triangleArea = 0;
int x1 = vertices[0][0], x2 = vertices[1][0], x3 = vertices[2][0];
int y1 = vertices[0][1], y2 = vertices[1][1], y3 = vertices[2][1];
triangleArea = Math.abs(((x1-x2)*(y1+y2))
+ ((x2-x3)*(y2+y3))
+ ((x3-x1)*(y3+y1)));
triangleArea /=2;
triangleArea++;
interiorPoints = Math.abs(gcd(x1-x2,y1-y2))
+ Math.abs(gcd(x2-x3, y2-y3))
+ Math.abs(gcd(x3-x1, y3-y1));
interiorPoints /=2;
return (int)(triangleArea - interiorPoints);
}
From the man page for XFillPolygon:
If shape is Complex, the path may self-intersect. Note that contiguous coincident points in the path are not treated as self-intersection.
If shape is Convex, for every pair of points inside the polygon, the line segment connecting them does not intersect the path. If known by the client, specifying Convex can improve performance. If you specify Convex for a path that is not convex, the graphics results are undefined.
If shape is Nonconvex, the path does not self-intersect, but the shape is not wholly convex. If known by the client, specifying Nonconvex instead of Complex may improve performance. If you specify Nonconvex for a self-intersecting path, the graphics results are undefined.
I am having performance problems with fill XFillPolygon and, as the man page suggests, the first step I want to take is to specify the correct shape of the polygon. I am currently using Complex to be on the safe side.
Is there an efficient algorithm to determine if a polygon (defined by a series of coordinates) is convex, non-convex or complex?
You can make things a lot easier than the Gift-Wrapping Algorithm... that's a good answer when you have a set of points w/o any particular boundary and need to find the convex hull.
In contrast, consider the case where the polygon is not self-intersecting, and it consists of a set of points in a list where the consecutive points form the boundary. In this case it is much easier to figure out whether a polygon is convex or not (and you don't have to calculate any angles, either):
For each consecutive pair of edges of the polygon (each triplet of points), compute the z-component of the cross product of the vectors defined by the edges pointing towards the points in increasing order. Take the cross product of these vectors:
given p[k], p[k+1], p[k+2] each with coordinates x, y:
dx1 = x[k+1]-x[k]
dy1 = y[k+1]-y[k]
dx2 = x[k+2]-x[k+1]
dy2 = y[k+2]-y[k+1]
zcrossproduct = dx1*dy2 - dy1*dx2
The polygon is convex if the z-components of the cross products are either all positive or all negative. Otherwise the polygon is nonconvex.
If there are N points, make sure you calculate N cross products, e.g. be sure to use the triplets (p[N-2],p[N-1],p[0]) and (p[N-1],p[0],p[1]).
If the polygon is self-intersecting, then it fails the technical definition of convexity even if its directed angles are all in the same direction, in which case the above approach would not produce the correct result.
This question is now the first item in either Bing or Google when you search for "determine convex polygon." However, none of the answers are good enough.
The (now deleted) answer by #EugeneYokota works by checking whether an unordered set of points can be made into a convex polygon, but that's not what the OP asked for. He asked for a method to check whether a given polygon is convex or not. (A "polygon" in computer science is usually defined [as in the XFillPolygon documentation] as an ordered array of 2D points, with consecutive points joined with a side as well as the last point to the first.) Also, the gift wrapping algorithm in this case would have the time-complexity of O(n^2) for n points - which is much larger than actually needed to solve this problem, while the question asks for an efficient algorithm.
#JasonS's answer, along with the other answers that follow his idea, accepts star polygons such as a pentagram or the one in #zenna's comment, but star polygons are not considered to be convex. As
#plasmacel notes in a comment, this is a good approach to use if you have prior knowledge that the polygon is not self-intersecting, but it can fail if you do not have that knowledge.
#Sekhat's answer is correct but it also has the time-complexity of O(n^2) and thus is inefficient.
#LorenPechtel's added answer after her edit is the best one here but it is vague.
A correct algorithm with optimal complexity
The algorithm I present here has the time-complexity of O(n), correctly tests whether a polygon is convex or not, and passes all the tests I have thrown at it. The idea is to traverse the sides of the polygon, noting the direction of each side and the signed change of direction between consecutive sides. "Signed" here means left-ward is positive and right-ward is negative (or the reverse) and straight-ahead is zero. Those angles are normalized to be between minus-pi (exclusive) and pi (inclusive). Summing all these direction-change angles (a.k.a the deflection angles) together will result in plus-or-minus one turn (i.e. 360 degrees) for a convex polygon, while a star-like polygon (or a self-intersecting loop) will have a different sum ( n * 360 degrees, for n turns overall, for polygons where all the deflection angles are of the same sign). So we must check that the sum of the direction-change angles is plus-or-minus one turn. We also check that the direction-change angles are all positive or all negative and not reverses (pi radians), all points are actual 2D points, and that no consecutive vertices are identical. (That last point is debatable--you may want to allow repeated vertices but I prefer to prohibit them.) The combination of those checks catches all convex and non-convex polygons.
Here is code for Python 3 that implements the algorithm and includes some minor efficiencies. The code looks longer than it really is due to the the comment lines and the bookkeeping involved in avoiding repeated point accesses.
TWO_PI = 2 * pi
def is_convex_polygon(polygon):
"""Return True if the polynomial defined by the sequence of 2D
points is 'strictly convex': points are valid, side lengths non-
zero, interior angles are strictly between zero and a straight
angle, and the polygon does not intersect itself.
NOTES: 1. Algorithm: the signed changes of the direction angles
from one side to the next side must be all positive or
all negative, and their sum must equal plus-or-minus
one full turn (2 pi radians). Also check for too few,
invalid, or repeated points.
2. No check is explicitly done for zero internal angles
(180 degree direction-change angle) as this is covered
in other ways, including the `n < 3` check.
"""
try: # needed for any bad points or direction changes
# Check for too few points
if len(polygon) < 3:
return False
# Get starting information
old_x, old_y = polygon[-2]
new_x, new_y = polygon[-1]
new_direction = atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x)
angle_sum = 0.0
# Check each point (the side ending there, its angle) and accum. angles
for ndx, newpoint in enumerate(polygon):
# Update point coordinates and side directions, check side length
old_x, old_y, old_direction = new_x, new_y, new_direction
new_x, new_y = newpoint
new_direction = atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x)
if old_x == new_x and old_y == new_y:
return False # repeated consecutive points
# Calculate & check the normalized direction-change angle
angle = new_direction - old_direction
if angle <= -pi:
angle += TWO_PI # make it in half-open interval (-Pi, Pi]
elif angle > pi:
angle -= TWO_PI
if ndx == 0: # if first time through loop, initialize orientation
if angle == 0.0:
return False
orientation = 1.0 if angle > 0.0 else -1.0
else: # if other time through loop, check orientation is stable
if orientation * angle <= 0.0: # not both pos. or both neg.
return False
# Accumulate the direction-change angle
angle_sum += angle
# Check that the total number of full turns is plus-or-minus 1
return abs(round(angle_sum / TWO_PI)) == 1
except (ArithmeticError, TypeError, ValueError):
return False # any exception means not a proper convex polygon
The following Java function/method is an implementation of the algorithm described in this answer.
public boolean isConvex()
{
if (_vertices.size() < 4)
return true;
boolean sign = false;
int n = _vertices.size();
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
double dx1 = _vertices.get((i + 2) % n).X - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).X;
double dy1 = _vertices.get((i + 2) % n).Y - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).Y;
double dx2 = _vertices.get(i).X - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).X;
double dy2 = _vertices.get(i).Y - _vertices.get((i + 1) % n).Y;
double zcrossproduct = dx1 * dy2 - dy1 * dx2;
if (i == 0)
sign = zcrossproduct > 0;
else if (sign != (zcrossproduct > 0))
return false;
}
return true;
}
The algorithm is guaranteed to work as long as the vertices are ordered (either clockwise or counter-clockwise), and you don't have self-intersecting edges (i.e. it only works for simple polygons).
Here's a test to check if a polygon is convex.
Consider each set of three points along the polygon--a vertex, the vertex before, the vertex after. If every angle is 180 degrees or less you have a convex polygon. When you figure out each angle, also keep a running total of (180 - angle). For a convex polygon, this will total 360.
This test runs in O(n) time.
Note, also, that in most cases this calculation is something you can do once and save — most of the time you have a set of polygons to work with that don't go changing all the time.
To test if a polygon is convex, every point of the polygon should be level with or behind each line.
Here's an example picture:
The answer by #RoryDaulton
seems the best to me, but what if one of the angles is exactly 0?
Some may want such an edge case to return True, in which case, change "<=" to "<" in the line :
if orientation * angle < 0.0: # not both pos. or both neg.
Here are my test cases which highlight the issue :
# A square
assert is_convex_polygon( ((0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1)) )
# This LOOKS like a square, but it has an extra point on one of the edges.
assert is_convex_polygon( ((0,0), (0.5,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1)) )
The 2nd assert fails in the original answer. Should it?
For my use case, I would prefer it didn't.
This method would work on simple polygons (no self intersecting edges) assuming that the vertices are ordered (either clockwise or counter)
For an array of vertices:
vertices = [(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,1)]
The following python implementation checks whether the z component of all the cross products have the same sign
def zCrossProduct(a,b,c):
return (a[0]-b[0])*(b[1]-c[1])-(a[1]-b[1])*(b[0]-c[0])
def isConvex(vertices):
if len(vertices)<4:
return True
signs= [zCrossProduct(a,b,c)>0 for a,b,c in zip(vertices[2:],vertices[1:],vertices)]
return all(signs) or not any(signs)
I implemented both algorithms: the one posted by #UriGoren (with a small improvement - only integer math) and the one from #RoryDaulton, in Java. I had some problems because my polygon is closed, so both algorithms were considering the second as concave, when it was convex. So i changed it to prevent such situation. My methods also uses a base index (which can be or not 0).
These are my test vertices:
// concave
int []x = {0,100,200,200,100,0,0};
int []y = {50,0,50,200,50,200,50};
// convex
int []x = {0,100,200,100,0,0};
int []y = {50,0,50,200,200,50};
And now the algorithms:
private boolean isConvex1(int[] x, int[] y, int base, int n) // Rory Daulton
{
final double TWO_PI = 2 * Math.PI;
// points is 'strictly convex': points are valid, side lengths non-zero, interior angles are strictly between zero and a straight
// angle, and the polygon does not intersect itself.
// NOTES: 1. Algorithm: the signed changes of the direction angles from one side to the next side must be all positive or
// all negative, and their sum must equal plus-or-minus one full turn (2 pi radians). Also check for too few,
// invalid, or repeated points.
// 2. No check is explicitly done for zero internal angles(180 degree direction-change angle) as this is covered
// in other ways, including the `n < 3` check.
// needed for any bad points or direction changes
// Check for too few points
if (n <= 3) return true;
if (x[base] == x[n-1] && y[base] == y[n-1]) // if its a closed polygon, ignore last vertex
n--;
// Get starting information
int old_x = x[n-2], old_y = y[n-2];
int new_x = x[n-1], new_y = y[n-1];
double new_direction = Math.atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x), old_direction;
double angle_sum = 0.0, orientation=0;
// Check each point (the side ending there, its angle) and accum. angles for ndx, newpoint in enumerate(polygon):
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
// Update point coordinates and side directions, check side length
old_x = new_x; old_y = new_y; old_direction = new_direction;
int p = base++;
new_x = x[p]; new_y = y[p];
new_direction = Math.atan2(new_y - old_y, new_x - old_x);
if (old_x == new_x && old_y == new_y)
return false; // repeated consecutive points
// Calculate & check the normalized direction-change angle
double angle = new_direction - old_direction;
if (angle <= -Math.PI)
angle += TWO_PI; // make it in half-open interval (-Pi, Pi]
else if (angle > Math.PI)
angle -= TWO_PI;
if (i == 0) // if first time through loop, initialize orientation
{
if (angle == 0.0) return false;
orientation = angle > 0 ? 1 : -1;
}
else // if other time through loop, check orientation is stable
if (orientation * angle <= 0) // not both pos. or both neg.
return false;
// Accumulate the direction-change angle
angle_sum += angle;
// Check that the total number of full turns is plus-or-minus 1
}
return Math.abs(Math.round(angle_sum / TWO_PI)) == 1;
}
And now from Uri Goren
private boolean isConvex2(int[] x, int[] y, int base, int n)
{
if (n < 4)
return true;
boolean sign = false;
if (x[base] == x[n-1] && y[base] == y[n-1]) // if its a closed polygon, ignore last vertex
n--;
for(int p=0; p < n; p++)
{
int i = base++;
int i1 = i+1; if (i1 >= n) i1 = base + i1-n;
int i2 = i+2; if (i2 >= n) i2 = base + i2-n;
int dx1 = x[i1] - x[i];
int dy1 = y[i1] - y[i];
int dx2 = x[i2] - x[i1];
int dy2 = y[i2] - y[i1];
int crossproduct = dx1*dy2 - dy1*dx2;
if (i == base)
sign = crossproduct > 0;
else
if (sign != (crossproduct > 0))
return false;
}
return true;
}
For a non complex (intersecting) polygon to be convex, vector frames obtained from any two connected linearly independent lines a,b must be point-convex otherwise the polygon is concave.
For example the lines a,b are convex to the point p and concave to it below for each case i.e. above: p exists inside a,b and below: p exists outside a,b
Similarly for each polygon below, if each line pair making up a sharp edge is point-convex to the centroid c then the polygon is convex otherwise it’s concave.
blunt edges (wronged green) are to be ignored
N.B
This approach would require you compute the centroid of your polygon beforehand since it doesn’t employ angles but vector algebra/transformations
Adapted Uri's code into matlab. Hope this may help.
Be aware that Uri's algorithm only works for simple polygons! So, be sure to test if the polygon is simple first!
% M [ x1 x2 x3 ...
% y1 y2 y3 ...]
% test if a polygon is convex
function ret = isConvex(M)
N = size(M,2);
if (N<4)
ret = 1;
return;
end
x0 = M(1, 1:end);
x1 = [x0(2:end), x0(1)];
x2 = [x0(3:end), x0(1:2)];
y0 = M(2, 1:end);
y1 = [y0(2:end), y0(1)];
y2 = [y0(3:end), y0(1:2)];
dx1 = x2 - x1;
dy1 = y2 - y1;
dx2 = x0 - x1;
dy2 = y0 - y1;
zcrossproduct = dx1 .* dy2 - dy1 .* dx2;
% equality allows two consecutive edges to be parallel
t1 = sum(zcrossproduct >= 0);
t2 = sum(zcrossproduct <= 0);
ret = t1 == N || t2 == N;
end
I'm looking for an algorithm to detect if two rectangles intersect (one at an arbitrary angle, the other with only vertical/horizontal lines).
Testing if a corner of one is in the other ALMOST works. It fails if the rectangles form a cross-like shape.
It seems like a good idea to avoid using slopes of the lines, which would require special cases for vertical lines.
The standard method would be to do the separating axis test (do a google search on that).
In short:
Two objects don't intersect if you can find a line that separates the two objects. e.g. the objects / all points of an object are on different sides of the line.
The fun thing is, that it's sufficient to just check all edges of the two rectangles. If the rectangles don't overlap one of the edges will be the separating axis.
In 2D you can do this without using slopes. An edge is simply defined as the difference between two vertices, e.g.
edge = v(n) - v(n-1)
You can get a perpendicular to this by rotating it by 90°. In 2D this is easy as:
rotated.x = -unrotated.y
rotated.y = unrotated.x
So no trigonometry or slopes involved. Normalizing the vector to unit-length is not required either.
If you want to test if a point is on one or another side of the line you can just use the dot-product. the sign will tell you which side you're on:
// rotated: your rotated edge
// v(n-1) any point from the edge.
// testpoint: the point you want to find out which side it's on.
side = sign (rotated.x * (testpoint.x - v(n-1).x) +
rotated.y * (testpoint.y - v(n-1).y);
Now test all points of rectangle A against the edges of rectangle B and vice versa. If you find a separating edge the objects don't intersect (providing all other points in B are on the other side of the edge being tested for - see drawing below). If you find no separating edge either the rectangles are intersecting or one rectangle is contained in the other.
The test works with any convex polygons btw..
Amendment: To identify a separating edge, it is not enough to test all points of one rectangle against each edge of the other. The candidate-edge E (below) would as such be identified as a separating edge, as all points in A are in the same half-plane of E. However, it isn't a separating edge because the vertices Vb1 and Vb2 of B are also in that half-plane. It would only have been a separating edge if that had not been the case
http://www.iassess.com/collision.png
Basically look at the following picture:
If the two boxes collide, the lines A and B will overlap.
Note that this will have to be done on both the X and the Y axis, and both need to overlap for the rectangles to collide.
There is a good article in gamasutra.com which answers the question (the picture is from the article).
I did similar algorithm 5 years ago and I have to find my code snippet to post it here later
Amendment: The Separating Axis Theorem states that two convex shapes do not overlap if a separating axis exists (i.e. one where the projections as shown do not overlap). So "A separating axis exists" => "No overlap". This is not a bi-implication so you cannot conclude the converse.
In Cocoa you could easily detect whether the selectedArea rect intersects your rotated NSView's frame rect.
You don't even need to calculate polygons, normals an such. Just add these methods to your NSView subclass.
For instance, the user selects an area on the NSView's superview, then you call the method DoesThisRectSelectMe passing the selectedArea rect. The API convertRect: will do that job. The same trick works when you click on the NSView to select it. In that case simply override the hitTest method as below. The API convertPoint: will do that job ;-)
- (BOOL)DoesThisRectSelectMe:(NSRect)selectedArea
{
NSRect localArea = [self convertRect:selectedArea fromView:self.superview];
return NSIntersectsRect(localArea, self.bounds);
}
- (NSView *)hitTest:(NSPoint)aPoint
{
NSPoint localPoint = [self convertPoint:aPoint fromView:self.superview];
return NSPointInRect(localPoint, self.bounds) ? self : nil;
}
m_pGladiator's answer is right and I prefer to it.
Separating axis test is simplest and standard method to detect rectangle overlap. A line for which the projection intervals do not overlap we call a separating axis. Nils Pipenbrinck's solution is too general. It use dot product to check whether one shape is totally on the one side of the edge of the other. This solution is actually could induce to n-edge convex polygons. However, it is not optmized for two rectangles.
the critical point of m_pGladiator's answer is that we should check two rectangles' projection on both axises (x and y). If two projections are overlapped, then we could say these two rectangles are overlapped. So the comments above to m_pGladiator's answer are wrong.
for the simple situation, if two rectangles are not rotated,
we present a rectangle with structure:
struct Rect {
x, // the center in x axis
y, // the center in y axis
width,
height
}
we name rectangle A, B with rectA, rectB.
if Math.abs(rectA.x - rectB.x) < (Math.abs(rectA.width + rectB.width) / 2)
&& (Math.abs(rectA.y - rectB.y) < (Math.abs(rectA.height + rectB.height) / 2))
then
// A and B collide
end if
if any one of the two rectangles are rotated,
It may needs some efforts to determine the projection of them on x and y axises. Define struct RotatedRect as following:
struct RotatedRect : Rect {
double angle; // the rotating angle oriented to its center
}
the difference is how the width' is now a little different:
widthA' for rectA: Math.sqrt(rectA.width*rectA.width + rectA.height*rectA.height) * Math.cos(rectA.angle)
widthB' for rectB: Math.sqrt(rectB.width*rectB.width + rectB.height*rectB.height) * Math.cos(rectB.angle)
if Math.abs(rectA.x - rectB.x) < (Math.abs(widthA' + widthB') / 2)
&& (Math.abs(rectA.y - rectB.y) < (Math.abs(heightA' + heightB') / 2))
then
// A and B collide
end if
Could refer to a GDC(Game Development Conference 2007) PPT www.realtimecollisiondetection.net/pubs/GDC07_Ericson_Physics_Tutorial_SAT.ppt
The accepted answer about the separating axis test was very illuminating but I still felt it was not trivial to apply. I will share the pseudo-code I thought, "optimizing" first with the bounding circle test (see this other answer), in case it might help other people. I considered two rectangles A and B of the same size (but it is straightforward to consider the general situation).
1 Bounding circle test:
function isRectangleACollidingWithRectangleB:
if d > 2 * R:
return False
...
Computationally is much faster than the separating axis test. You only need to consider the separating axis test in the situation that both circles collide.
2 Separating axis test
The main idea is:
Consider one rectangle. Cycle along its vertices V(i).
Calculate the vector Si+1: V(i+1) - V(i).
Calculate the vector Ni using Si+1: Ni = (-Si+1.y, Si+1.x). This vector is the blue from the image. The sign of the dot product between the vectors from V(i) to the other vertices and Ni will define the separating axis (magenta dashed line).
Calculate the vector Si-1: V(i-1) - V(i). The sign of the dot product between Si-1 and Ni will define the location of the first rectangle with respect to the separating axis. In the example of the picture, they go in different directions, so the sign will be negative.
Cycle for all vertices j of the second square and calculate the vector Sij = V(j) - V(i).
If for any vertex V(j), the sign of the dot product of the vector Sij with Ni is the same as with the dot product of the vector Si-1 with Ni, this means both vertices V(i) and V(j) are on the same side of the magenta dashed line and, thus, vertex V(i) does not have a separating axis. So we can just skip vertex V(i) and repeat for the next vertex V(i+1). But first we update Si-1 = - Si+1. When we reach the last vertex (i = 4), if we have not found a separating axis, we repeat for the other rectangle. And if we still do not find a separating axis, this implies there is no separating axis and both rectangles collide.
If for a given vertex V(i) and all vertices V(j), the sign of the dot product of the vector Sij with Ni is different than with the vector Si-1 with Ni (as occurs in the image), this means we have found the separating axis and the rectangles do not collide.
In pseudo-code:
function isRectangleACollidingWithRectangleB:
...
#Consider first rectangle A:
Si-1 = Vertex_A[4] - Vertex_A[1]
for i in Vertex_A:
Si+1 = Vertex_A[i+1] - Vertex_A[i]
Ni = [- Si+1.y, Si+1.x ]
sgn_i = sign( dot_product(Si-1, Ni) ) #sgn_i is the sign of rectangle A with respect the separating axis
for j in Vertex_B:
sij = Vertex_B[j] - Vertex_A[i]
sgn_j = sign( dot_product(sij, Ni) ) #sgnj is the sign of vertex j of square B with respect the separating axis
if sgn_i * sgn_j > 0: #i.e., we have the same sign
break #Vertex i does not define separating axis
else:
if j == 4: #we have reached the last vertex so vertex i defines the separating axis
return False
Si-1 = - Si+1
#Repeat for rectangle B
...
#If we do not find any separating axis
return True
You can find the code in Python here.
Note:
In this other answer they also suggest for optimization to try before the separating axis test whether the vertices of one rectangle are inside the other as a sufficient condition for colliding. However, in my trials I found this intermediate step to actually be less efficient.
Check to see if any of the lines from one rectangle intersect any of the lines from the other. Naive line segment intersection is easy to code up.
If you need more speed, there are advanced algorithms for line segment intersection (sweep-line). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment_intersection
One solution is to use something called a No Fit Polygon. This polygon is calculated from the two polygons (conceptually by sliding one around the other) and it defines the area for which the polygons overlap given their relative offset. Once you have this NFP then you simply have to do an inclusion test with a point given by the relative offset of the two polygons. This inclusion test is quick and easy but you do have to create the NFP first.
Have a search for No Fit Polygon on the web and see if you can find an algorithm for convex polygons (it gets MUCH more complex if you have concave polygons). If you can't find anything then email me at howard dot J dot may gmail dot com
Here is what I think will take care of all possible cases.
Do the following tests.
Check any of the vertices of rectangle 1 reside inside rectangle 2 and vice versa. Anytime you find a vertex that resides inside the other rectangle you can conclude that they intersect and stop the search. THis will take care of one rectangle residing completely inside the other.
If the above test is inconclusive find the intersecting points of each line of 1 rectangle with each line of the other rectangle. Once a point of intersection is found check if it resides between inside the imaginary rectangle created by the corresponding 4 points. When ever such a point is found conclude that they intersect and stop the search.
If the above 2 tests return false then these 2 rectangles do not overlap.
If you're using Java, all implementations of the Shape interface have an intersects method that take a rectangle.
Well, the brute force method is to walk the edges of the horizontal rectangle and check each point along the edge to see if it falls on or in the other rectangle.
The mathematical answer is to form equations describing each edge of both rectangles. Now you can simply find if any of the four lines from rectangle A intersect any of the lines of rectangle B, which should be a simple (fast) linear equation solver.
-Adam
You could find the intersection of each side of the angled rectangle with each side of the axis-aligned one. Do this by finding the equation of the infinite line on which each side lies (i.e. v1 + t(v2-v1) and v'1 + t'(v'2-v'1) basically), finding the point at which the lines meet by solving for t when those two equations are equal (if they're parallel, you can test for that) and then testing whether that point lies on the line segment between the two vertices, i.e. is it true that 0 <= t <= 1 and 0 <= t' <= 1.
However, this doesn't cover the case when one rectangle completely covers the other. That you can cover by testing whether all four points of either rectangle lie inside the other rectangle.
This is what I would do, for the 3D version of this problem:
Model the 2 rectangles as planes described by equation P1 and P2, then write P1=P2 and derive from that the line of intersection equation, which won't exist if the planes are parallel (no intersection), or are in the same plane, in which case you get 0=0. In that case you will need to employ a 2D rectangle intersection algorithm.
Then I would see if that line, which is in the plane of both rectangles, passes through both rectangles. If it does, then you have an intersection of 2 rectangles, otherwise you don't (or shouldn't, I might have missed a corner case in my head).
To find if a line passes through a rectangle in the same plane, I would find the 2 points of intersection of the line and the sides of the rectangle (modelling them using line equations), and then make sure the points of intersections are with in range.
That is the mathematical descriptions, unfortunately I have no code to do the above.
Another way to do the test which is slightly faster than using the separating axis test, is to use the winding numbers algorithm (on quadrants only - not angle-summation which is horrifically slow) on each vertex of either rectangle (arbitrarily chosen). If any of the vertices have a non-zero winding number, the two rectangles overlap.
This algorithm is somewhat more long-winded than the separating axis test, but is faster because it only require a half-plane test if edges are crossing two quadrants (as opposed to up to 32 tests using the separating axis method)
The algorithm has the further advantage that it can be used to test overlap of any polygon (convex or concave). As far as I know, the algorithm only works in 2D space.
Either I am missing something else why make this so complicated?
if (x1,y1) and (X1,Y1) are corners of the rectangles, then to find intersection do:
xIntersect = false;
yIntersect = false;
if (!(Math.min(x1, x2, x3, x4) > Math.max(X1, X2, X3, X4) || Math.max(x1, x2, x3, x4) < Math.min(X1, X2, X3, X4))) xIntersect = true;
if (!(Math.min(y1, y2, y3, y4) > Math.max(Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4) || Math.max(y1, y2, y3, y4) < Math.min(Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4))) yIntersect = true;
if (xIntersect && yIntersect) {alert("Intersect");}
I implemented it like this:
bool rectCollision(const CGRect &boundsA, const Matrix3x3 &mB, const CGRect &boundsB)
{
float Axmin = boundsA.origin.x;
float Axmax = Axmin + boundsA.size.width;
float Aymin = boundsA.origin.y;
float Aymax = Aymin + boundsA.size.height;
float Bxmin = boundsB.origin.x;
float Bxmax = Bxmin + boundsB.size.width;
float Bymin = boundsB.origin.y;
float Bymax = Bymin + boundsB.size.height;
// find location of B corners in A space
float B0x = mB(0,0) * Bxmin + mB(0,1) * Bymin + mB(0,2);
float B0y = mB(1,0) * Bxmin + mB(1,1) * Bymin + mB(1,2);
float B1x = mB(0,0) * Bxmax + mB(0,1) * Bymin + mB(0,2);
float B1y = mB(1,0) * Bxmax + mB(1,1) * Bymin + mB(1,2);
float B2x = mB(0,0) * Bxmin + mB(0,1) * Bymax + mB(0,2);
float B2y = mB(1,0) * Bxmin + mB(1,1) * Bymax + mB(1,2);
float B3x = mB(0,0) * Bxmax + mB(0,1) * Bymax + mB(0,2);
float B3y = mB(1,0) * Bxmax + mB(1,1) * Bymax + mB(1,2);
if(B0x<Axmin && B1x<Axmin && B2x<Axmin && B3x<Axmin)
return false;
if(B0x>Axmax && B1x>Axmax && B2x>Axmax && B3x>Axmax)
return false;
if(B0y<Aymin && B1y<Aymin && B2y<Aymin && B3y<Aymin)
return false;
if(B0y>Aymax && B1y>Aymax && B2y>Aymax && B3y>Aymax)
return false;
float det = mB(0,0)*mB(1,1) - mB(0,1)*mB(1,0);
float dx = mB(1,2)*mB(0,1) - mB(0,2)*mB(1,1);
float dy = mB(0,2)*mB(1,0) - mB(1,2)*mB(0,0);
// find location of A corners in B space
float A0x = (mB(1,1) * Axmin - mB(0,1) * Aymin + dx)/det;
float A0y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmin + mB(0,0) * Aymin + dy)/det;
float A1x = (mB(1,1) * Axmax - mB(0,1) * Aymin + dx)/det;
float A1y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmax + mB(0,0) * Aymin + dy)/det;
float A2x = (mB(1,1) * Axmin - mB(0,1) * Aymax + dx)/det;
float A2y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmin + mB(0,0) * Aymax + dy)/det;
float A3x = (mB(1,1) * Axmax - mB(0,1) * Aymax + dx)/det;
float A3y = (-mB(1,0) * Axmax + mB(0,0) * Aymax + dy)/det;
if(A0x<Bxmin && A1x<Bxmin && A2x<Bxmin && A3x<Bxmin)
return false;
if(A0x>Bxmax && A1x>Bxmax && A2x>Bxmax && A3x>Bxmax)
return false;
if(A0y<Bymin && A1y<Bymin && A2y<Bymin && A3y<Bymin)
return false;
if(A0y>Bymax && A1y>Bymax && A2y>Bymax && A3y>Bymax)
return false;
return true;
}
The matrix mB is any affine transform matrix that converts points in the B space to points in the A space. This includes simple rotation and translation, rotation plus scaling, and full affine warps, but not perspective warps.
It may not be as optimal as possible. Speed was not a huge concern. However it seems to work ok for me.
Here is a matlab implementation of the accepted answer:
function olap_flag = ol(A,B,sub)
%A and B should be 4 x 2 matrices containing the xy coordinates of the corners in clockwise order
if nargin == 2
olap_flag = ol(A,B,1) && ol(B,A,1);
return;
end
urdl = diff(A([1:4 1],:));
s = sum(urdl .* A, 2);
sdiff = B * urdl' - repmat(s,[1 4]);
olap_flag = ~any(max(sdiff)<0);
This is the conventional method, go line by line and check whether the lines are intersecting. This is the code in MATLAB.
C1 = [0, 0]; % Centre of rectangle 1 (x,y)
C2 = [1, 1]; % Centre of rectangle 2 (x,y)
W1 = 5; W2 = 3; % Widths of rectangles 1 and 2
H1 = 2; H2 = 3; % Heights of rectangles 1 and 2
% Define the corner points of the rectangles using the above
R1 = [C1(1) + [W1; W1; -W1; -W1]/2, C1(2) + [H1; -H1; -H1; H1]/2];
R2 = [C2(1) + [W2; W2; -W2; -W2]/2, C2(2) + [H2; -H2; -H2; H2]/2];
R1 = [R1 ; R1(1,:)] ;
R2 = [R2 ; R2(1,:)] ;
plot(R1(:,1),R1(:,2),'r')
hold on
plot(R2(:,1),R2(:,2),'b')
%% lines of Rectangles
L1 = [R1(1:end-1,:) R1(2:end,:)] ;
L2 = [R2(1:end-1,:) R2(2:end,:)] ;
%% GEt intersection points
P = zeros(2,[]) ;
count = 0 ;
for i = 1:4
line1 = reshape(L1(i,:),2,2) ;
for j = 1:4
line2 = reshape(L2(j,:),2,2) ;
point = InterX(line1,line2) ;
if ~isempty(point)
count = count+1 ;
P(:,count) = point ;
end
end
end
%%
if ~isempty(P)
fprintf('Given rectangles intersect at %d points:\n',size(P,2))
plot(P(1,:),P(2,:),'*k')
end
the function InterX can be downloaded from: https://in.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/22441-curve-intersections?focused=5165138&tab=function
I have a simplier method of my own, if we have 2 rectangles:
R1 = (min_x1, max_x1, min_y1, max_y1)
R2 = (min_x2, max_x2, min_y2, max_y2)
They overlap if and only if:
Overlap = (max_x1 > min_x2) and (max_x2 > min_x1) and (max_y1 > min_y2) and (max_y2 > min_y1)
You can do it for 3D boxes too, actually it works for any number of dimensions.
Enough has been said in other answers, so I'll just add pseudocode one-liner:
!(a.left > b.right || b.left > a.right || a.top > b.bottom || b.top > a.bottom);
Check if the center of mass of all the vertices of both rectangles lies within one of the rectangles.