Here is a scatter diagram. It is obvious that some points are on their corresponding circle and some are not. How to find the circles and the coordinates of their centers?
The way to detect circles is via a Hough transform.
You have an accumulator matrix, initially set to zero, then you go through the input. For each set pixel, you vote for the circles it could possibly be part of. So the accumulator matrix needs to be 3D (ox, oy and radius).
You then take local maxima in the accumulator matrix, and those are the circles.
Related
I am aiming to create the following (a directed arrow that connects two nodes) :
At the moment I have this (a quadratic bezier curve drawn from the center point of one node to the center of another):
(Note I have drawn the bezier above the nodes to show where it begins and ends)
I need a method - heuristic or otherwise - to calculate the point of intersection (circled in red, above) between the bezier curve and the node's (ellipse) circumference.
With this, I could calculate the angle between the node center and the point of intersection to draw the arrow head lines at the correct location and angle.
As a last resort, I could use the quadratic Bézier formula to generate a list of points that lie along the curve and also generate a list of points that lie on the circumference of the circle and use one of the two coordinates that have the least euclidian distance between each other as my intersection point. I'm hoping any answers can leverage geometry or whatever else to better solve it.
The general problem is uneasy as the intersection equation is quartic ((X(t)-Xc)² + (Y(t)-Yc)²=R²), where X and Y are quadratic polynomials). If you have a quartic solver handy you can use it but you'll have to select the right root.
A more reasonable approach is just to intersect the circle with the line segment between the control points. This is approximate but probably unnoticeable if the circle radius is small.
If you want more accuracy, perform one or two Newton's iterations from this point.
I want to find & draw contour lines like this.
Data is just List of (x,y,z) and only a few points (about 40~60) in there.
(x and y are position and z is height)
How can i find this contour line and point?
As a first approximation, you can admit that your function is piecewise planar over a triangulation of the data points.
The Delaunay triangulation technique can be used, but in this case, given the regular polar arrangement, I guess that a simple rule based on the polar arguments could do.
Interpolating inside the triangles and obtaining the horizontal sections is a simple matter. Unfortunately, this will produce a gross approximation and you will probably notice artifacts due to the coarseness of the polylines.
A possible cure is to smooth the polylines as a postprocessing step, for instance turning them to polyBeziers.
Another method, which I prefer, is to use a higher order interpolation method. For C1 continuity, you can compute estimates of the gradient at the given points and fit quadratic functions on the triangles. Then subdivide the triangles in sub-triangles, interpolate the function at the sub-vertices, and switch to the planar model in these sub-triangles.
As that looks like an irregular grid, you should first build a mesh around it (for instance, from a Voronoi tesellation).
For every triangle, take the maximum and minimum heights of its vertices and find out the heights of the contour lines in that range (for instance, if you are drawing contour lines every 10 units and the heights of a triangle go from 11.5 to 34.2, the contour lines passing through that triangle are at heights 20 and 30).
Then approximating the height function inside the triangle as a linear function, find out where those contour lines lay and draw them.
The data for the contour plot could be generated with a two-dimensional simplification of the marching cubes algorith, which is described here. In the simplification, squares are used instead of cubes and four sampled values are used for the interpolation instead of the the eight corners of the cubes.
The simplification is also termed marching squares.
I want to use the minkowski sum to predict the exact point of collision between two convex shapes. By my understanding the point where the velocity vector intersects with the minkowski sum is the amount I have to move my object along the vector so they just touch (I already know they will collide). Here's an example of what I mean (for simplicity reasons I just used rectangles):
I mean I could just calculate the intersection with every line of the convex hull and just use the closest but that seems horribly inefficient. My idea was to calculate the simplex closest to the vector but I have no idea how best to do it. I found a algorithm which calculates the smallest distance between to objects or to be more precise the smallest distance from the minkowski sum to the origin (http://www.codezealot.org/archives/153). One part of the algorithm tries to find the simplex closest to origin which is kinda what I want to do. I tried to change it to my needs but I wasn't successful. To me it sounds like there should be a very simple solution but I am not that good with vector math.
I hope I could make my problem clear since my english is not so good :D
You can transform the problem as follows:
1) rotate the plane so that the velocity vector becomes horizontal
2) consider the portions of the polygon outlines facing each other (these are two convex polylines); now you have to find the shortest horizontal distance between these two polylines
3) through every vertex of one of the polylines, draw an horizontal line; this will parition the plane into a set of horizontal slices
4) transform every slice using a shear transformation that brings the two vertices defining it onto the Y axis by horizontal moves; this transform preserves horizontal distances
5) while the first polyline is transformed into a straight line (the Y axis), the other polyline is transformed into another polyline; find the vertex(es) closest to the Y axis. This gives you the length of the collision vector.
As a by-product, step 2) will tell you if the polygons do collide, if the ranges of Y values overlap.
Can someone provide me an algorithm to draw points on arc? I know the start-point, end-point and radius. I need to show points on the arc made by this information(start-point, end-point and radius).
See the image for more details
I have Start-Point (x,y), End-Point(a,b). I have to calculate equally distance 5 points on arc. Is it possible?
The standard algorithm for this is the Midpoint circle algorithm (sometimes called Breshenham's circle algorithm).
Note that your arc specification is incomplete. There are generally two arcs of the same radius joining two given points, one for the center on each side of the line joining the points. Also, as #In silico points out, the radius can be no smaller than half the distance between the points.
The means of specifying an arc is similar to that used in SVG, which has some detailed implementation notes which are too long to copy here. For circular arcs, the x and y radii are equal so the x axis angle is not important. As Ted Hopp noted, you need a flag to indicate which direction the arc is drawn in ( in SVG called large-arc-flag ).
Once you have the centre and angles of start and end of the arc, divide the angle into six and use the sin/cos of this angle to plot the five intermediate points.
given a 3D grid, a 3d point as sphere center and a radius, i'd like to quickly calculate all cells contained or intersected by the sphere.
Currently i take the the (gridaligned) boundingbox of the sphere and calculate the two cells for the min anx max point of this boundingbox. then, for each cell between those two cells, i do a box-sphere intersection test.
would be great if there was something more efficient
thanks!
There's a version of the Bresenham algorithm for drawing circles. Consider the two dimensional place at z=0 (assume the sphere is at 0,0,0 for now), and look at only the x-y plane of grid points. Starting at x= R, y=0, follow the Bresenham algorithm up to y = y_R, x=0, except instead of drawing, you just use the result to know that all grid points with lower x coordinates are inside the circle, down to x=x_center. Put those in a list, count them or otherwise make note of. When done with two dimensional problem, repeat with varying z and using a reduced radius R(z) = sqrt(R^2-z^2) in place of R, until z=R.
If the sphere center is indeed located on a grid point, you know that every grid point inside or outside the right half of the sphere has a mirror partner on the left side, and likewise top/bottom, so you can do half the counting/listing per dimension. You can also save time running Bresenham only to the 45 degree line, because any x,y point relative to the center has a partner y,x. If the sphere can be anywhere, you will have to compute results for each octant.
No matter how efficiently you calculate an individual cell being inside or outside the sphere, your algorithm will always be O(radius^3) because you have to mark that many cells. DarenW's suggestion of the midpoint (aka Bresenham) circle algorithm could give a constant factor speedup, as could simply testing for intersection using the squared radius to avoid the sqrt() call.
If you want better than O(r^3) performance, then you may be able to use an octree instead of a flat grid. Each node of the tree could be marked as being entirely inside, entirely outside, or partially inside the sphere. For partially inside nodes, you recurse down the tree until you get to the finest-grained cells. This will still require marking O(r^2 log r) nodes [O(r^2) nodes on the boundary, O(log r) steps through the tree to get to each of them], so it might not be worth the trouble in your application.