I have a problem where I want to rotate an Actor about an arbitrary vector, I wonder if there's a standard way of using Blueprints to achieve that, in case I have the vector's coordinates. I didn't find anything useful online.
One more smaller issue I encountered, regarding the extraction of that vector:
Is there a way to extract world coordinates of some key-points of an Actor using Blueprints or the UE4 interface?
For example, given a door frame which is rotated 5 degrees around the X axis, can I extract the world coordinates of one of its corners using simple tools such as Blueprints or the interface?
Assuming you are rotating an actor (in this case, by your example that actor should be the door) you can take multiple approaches, but I'll list only three:
Option 1
First, define a Socket in the door mesh, in the position you want to obtain. Then, get its current position with a GetSocketLocation node.
Option 2
If your door is intended to be a blueprint and you need to get a specific point, you can define a Scene Component in that Blueprint in the specific position you want it and then create a function that returns the World Location of that component. This is particularly useful if that position can change in time.
Option 3
Simply have a Vector parameter defining the offset of your given point in the actor's local space. You'll still need a function to translate that offset from Local to World or World to Local, highly depending on your approach.
With your given context, this is a way to interpret your situation.
Related
I'm developing a simple game, where user can place different but modular objects (for instance: tracks, road etc).
My question is: how to match and place different object when placed one near the other ?
My first approach is to create an hidden child object (a box) for each module objects, and put it in the border where is possible to place other object (see my image example), so i can use that coordinates (x,y,z) to align other object.
But i don't know if the best approach.
Thanks
Summary:
1.Define what is a "snapping point"
2.Define which is your threshold
3.Update new game object position
Little Explanation
1.
So I suppose that you need a way to define which parts of the object are the "snapping points".
Cause they can be clear in some examples, like a Cube, where the whole vertex could be snapping points, but it's hard to define that every vertex in amorphous objects.
A simple solution could be the one exposed by #PierreBaret, whic consists in define on your transform component which are the "snapping points".
The other one is the one you propouse, creating empty game objects that will act as snapping points locations on the game object.
2.After having those snaped points, when you will drop your new gameObject, you need to define a threshold, as long as you don't want that every object snaps allways to the nearest game object.
3.So you define a minimum distance between snapping points, so if your snapping point is under that threshold, you will need to update it's position, to adjust to the the snapped point.
Visual Representation:
Note: The Threshold distance is showing just ONE of the 4 current threshold checks on the 4 vertex in the square, but this dark blue circle should be repilcate 3 more times, one for each green snapping point of the red square
Of course this method seems expensive, you can make some improvements like setting a first threshold between gameobjects, and if the gameObject is inside this threshold, then check snapping threshold distance.
Hope it helps!
Approach for arbitrary objects/models and deformable models.
[A] A physical approach would consider all the surfaces of the 2 objects, and you might need to check that objects don't overlap, using dot products between surfaces. That's a bit more expensive computing, but nothing nasty. If there is no match involved here, you'll be able to add matching features (see [B]). However, that's the only way to work with non predefined models or deformable models.
Approaches for matching simple and complex models
[B] Snapping points are a good thing but it's not sufficient alone. I think you need to make an object have:
a sparse representation (eg., complex oriented sphere to a cube),
and place key snapping points,
tagged by polarity or color, and eventually orientation (that's oriented snapping points); eg., in the case of rails, you'll want rails to snap {+} with {+} and forbid {+} with {-}. In the case of a more complex object, or when you have several orientations (eg., 2 faces of a surface, but only one is candidate for an pair of objects matching) you'll need more than 2 polarities, but 3 different ones per matching candidate surface or feature therefore the colors (or any enumeration). You need 3 different colors to make sure there is a unique 3D space configuration. You create something that is called in chemistry an enantiomer.
You can also use point pair features that describes the relative
position and orientation of two oriented points, when an oriented
surface is not appropriate.
References
Some are computer vision papers or book extracts, but they expose algorithms and concepts to achieve what I developed in my answer.
Model Globally, Match Locally: Efficient and Robust 3D Object Recognition, Drost et al.
3D Models and Matching
I am modifying the tango example point cloud app.
I have exported point clouds along with its current pose data.
The point cloud coordinates we get are relative to current pose.
I wanted to know how can I convert the point cloud of different poses to worldspace coordinates (with respect to origin which should be first pose in this case)?
1 - Applying the pose transform to the pose points will give you world space coordinates
2 - If you're treating the very first pose as special (which I really wouldn't advise) then you are expressing your coordinates in the first poses coordinate system, not world coordinates. If you really want to do this (please don't, simply computing inverse transforms is far better) then I'd say you want to invert the first transform and keep it handy, and then multiply subsequent transforms by the inverse of the first transform (to cancel out the 'contribution' of the first) and then transform the points with the result.
if i do a human model and import him to game engine. does game engine knows all point cordinates on model and rotates each ones? all models consists million points and and if i rotate a model 90 degree , does game engine calculates millions point new location and rotate? how does it works. Thanks
This is a bit of a vague question since each game engine will work differently, but in general the game engine will not touch the model coordinates.
Models are usually loaded with model space (or local space) coordinates - this simply means that each vertex is defined with a location relative to the origin of that model. The origin is defined as (0,0,0) and is the point around which rotations take place.
Now the game engine loads and keeps the model in this coordinate space. Then you provide your transformations (such as translation and rotation matrices) to place that model somewhere in your "world" (i.e. the global coordinate space shared by all objects). You also provide the way you want to view this world with various other transforms such projection and view matrices.
The game engine then takes all of these transformations and passes them to the GPU (or software renderer, in some cases) - it will also setup other stuff such as textures, etc. These are usually set once per frame (or per object for a frame).
Finally, it then passes each vertex that needs to be processed to the renderer. Each vertex is then transformed by the renderer using all the transformations specified to get a final vertex position - first in world space and then in screen space - which it can use to render pixels based on various other information (such as textures and lighting).
So the point is, in most cases, the engine really has nothing to do with the rotation of the model/vertices. It is simply a way to manage the model and the various settings that apply to it.
Of course, the engine can rotate the model and modify it's vertices, but this is usually only done during loading - for example if the model needs to be converted between different coordinate spaces.
There is a lot more going on, and this is a very basic description of what actually happens. There are many many sources that describe this process in great detail, so I won't even try to duplicate it. Hopefully this gives you enough detail to understand the basics.
I am trying to make a PointCloud mapping user with multiple kinects on Processing. I get the user's front and back with 2 kinects on opposite sides and generate both PointClouds.
The trouble is that the PointClouds X/Y/Z are not syncronized, it just puts the two of them on screen and it surely looks messy. There is a way to calculate or make a comparison between them, to translate the second PointCloud to "join" the first? I could translate the position manually, but if I move the sensors it will go off again.
Supposing all the Kinects are stationary, I guess you would have to go in this order:
decide on which Kinect to use as a global reference,
get parameters for a 3D transformation for each of the other Kinects - I'd try to
use PMatrix3D and applyMatrix(), although it may be slow,
apply the transformations on to each of the other Kinects' point clouds and draw
the clouds
I don't (yet) know how to get the transformation parameters for a Procrustes transformation, but assuming they won't change, you'd probably have to set up multiple reference points, maybe by displaying the point clouds from each pair of Kinects and registering the points you know are the same in both point clouds. After getting enough of them, construct a PMatrix3D and apply it inside push/popMatrix.
This is the approach used by this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUNj1RDL4I
An alternative approach would be to use an Iterative Closest Point algorithm and construct 3D transform from its output. I'd really like an ICP or PCL library for Processing, if anyone knows a good one.
Greetings,
I'm working on a game project that uses a 3D variant of hexagonal tile maps. Tiles are actually cubes, not hexes, but are laid out just like hexes (because a square can be turned to a cube to extrapolate from 2D to 3D, but there is no 3D version of a hex). Rather than a verbose description, here goes an example of a 4x4x4 map:
(I have highlighted an arbitrary tile (green) and its adjacent tiles (yellow) to help describe how the whole thing is supposed to work; but the adjacency functions are not the issue, that's already solved.)
I have a struct type to represent tiles, and maps are represented as a 3D array of tiles (wrapped in a Map class to add some utility methods, but that's not very relevant).
Each tile is supposed to represent a perfectly cubic space, and they are all exactly the same size. Also, the offset between adjacent "rows" is exactly half the size of a tile.
That's enough context; my question is:
Given the coordinates of two points A and B, how can I generate a list of the tiles (or, rather, their coordinates) that a straight line between A and B would cross?
That would later be used for a variety of purposes, such as determining Line-of-sight, charge path legality, and so on.
BTW, this may be useful: my maps use the (0,0,0) as a reference position. The 'jagging' of the map can be defined as offsetting each tile ((y+z) mod 2) * tileSize/2.0 to the right from the position it'd have on a "sane" cartesian system. For the non-jagged rows, that yields 0; for rows where (y+z) mod 2 is 1, it yields 0.5 tiles.
I'm working on C#4 targeting the .Net Framework 4.0; but I don't really need specific code, just the algorithm to solve the weird geometric/mathematical problem. I have been trying for several days to solve this at no avail; and trying to draw the whole thing on paper to "visualize" it didn't help either :( .
Thanks in advance for any answer
Until one of the clever SOers turns up, here's my dumb solution. I'll explain it in 2D 'cos that makes it easier to explain, but it will generalise to 3D easily enough. I think any attempt to try to work this entirely in cell index space is doomed to failure (though I'll admit it's just what I think and I look forward to being proved wrong).
So you need to define a function to map from cartesian coordinates to cell indices. This is straightforward, if a little tricky. First, decide whether point(0,0) is the bottom left corner of cell(0,0) or the centre, or some other point. Since it makes the explanations easier, I'll go with bottom-left corner. Observe that any point(x,floor(y)==0) maps to cell(floor(x),0). Indeed, any point(x,even(floor(y))) maps to cell(floor(x),floor(y)).
Here, I invent the boolean function even which returns True if its argument is an even integer. I'll use odd next: any point point(x,odd(floor(y)) maps to cell(floor(x-0.5),floor(y)).
Now you have the basics of the recipe for determining lines-of-sight.
You will also need a function to map from cell(m,n) back to a point in cartesian space. That should be straightforward once you have decided where the origin lies.
Now, unless I've misplaced some brackets, I think you are on your way. You'll need to:
decide where in cell(0,0) you position point(0,0); and adjust the function accordingly;
decide where points along the cell boundaries fall; and
generalise this into 3 dimensions.
Depending on the size of the playing field you could store the cartesian coordinates of the cell boundaries in a lookup table (or other data structure), which would probably speed things up.
Perhaps you can avoid all the complex math if you look at your problem in another way:
I see that you only shift your blocks (alternating) along the first axis by half the blocksize. If you split up your blocks along this axis the above example will become (with shifts) an (9x4x4) simple cartesian coordinate system with regular stacked blocks. Now doing the raytracing becomes much more simple and less error prone.