I'm going to develop carom board game. I'm having the problem with the collision of two pieces. How to find the collision point of two pieces. And then how to find the angle and distance the pieces travel after collision.I found the solution of the collision point at circle-circle collision. here the solution is described with trigonometry, but I want the solution with vector math. With which the problem of the distance covered after collision will also be solve easily.
You do not need to find the collision point for the collision computation itself. To detect a collision event, you only need to compare the distance of the centers go the sum of radii
sqrt(sqr(x2-x1)+sqr(y2-y1))<=r1+r2
or
dx*dx+dy*dy <= (r1+r2)*(r1+r2)
where (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) are the positions of disks 1 (with mass m1, radius r1 and velocity (vx1,vy1)) and 2. Differences are always 2 minus 1, dx=x2-x1 etc.
You will almost never get that the collision happens at the sample time of the time discretisation. With the above formula, the circles already have overlap. Depending on time step and general velocities this may be negligible or can result in severe over-shooting. The following simple computation assumes slow motion, i.e., very small overlap during the last time step.
The only thing that happens in the fully elastic collision of non-rotating disks is a change in velocity. This change has to happen only once, when further movement would further reduce the distance, i.e., if
dx*dvx+dy*dvy < 0
where dvx=vx2-vx1 etc.
Using these ideas, the computation looks like this (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/23193044/3088138 for details)
dx = x2-x1; dy = y2-y1;
dist2 = dx*dx + dy*dy;
R = r1+r2;
if ( dist2 <= R*R )
{
dvx=vx2-vx1; dvy=vy2-vy1;
dot = dx*dvx + dy*dvy;
if ( dot < 0 )
{
factor = 2/(m1+m2)*dot/dist2;
vx1 += m2*factor*dx;
vy1 += m2*factor*dy;
vx2 -= m1*factor*dx;
vy2 -= m1*factor*dy;
}
}
Related
For example, in a 2D space, with x [0 ; 1] and y [0 ; 1]. For p = 4, intuitively, I will place each point at each corner of the square.
But what can be the general algorithm?
Edit: The algorithm needs modification if dimensions are not orthogonal to eachother
To uniformly place the points as described in your example you could do something like this:
var combinedSize = 0
for each dimension d in d0..dn {
combinedSize += d.length;
}
val listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension = new List
for each d dimension d0..dn {
val percentageOfWholeDimensionSize = d.length/combinedSize
val pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension = percentageOfWholeDimensionSize * numberOfPoints
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[d.index] = d.length/(pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension - 1)
}
Run on your example it gives:
combinedSize = 2
percentageOfWholeDimensionSize = 1 / 2
pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension = 0.5 * 4
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[0] = 1 / (2 - 1)
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[1] = 1 / (2 - 1)
note: The minus 1 deals with the inclusive interval, allowing points at both endpoints of the dimension
2D case
In 2D (n=2) the solution is to place your p points evenly on some circle. If you want also to define the distance d between points then the circle should have radius around:
2*Pi*r = ~p*d
r = ~(p*d)/(2*Pi)
To be more precise you should use circumference of regular p-point polygon instead of circle circumference (I am too lazy to do that). Or you can compute the distance of produced points and scale up/down as needed instead.
So each point p(i) can be defined as:
p(i).x = r*cos((i*2.0*Pi)/p)
p(i).y = r*sin((i*2.0*Pi)/p)
3D case
Just use sphere instead of circle.
ND case
Use ND hypersphere instead of circle.
So your question boils down to place p "equidistant" points to a n-D hypersphere (either surface or volume). As you can see 2D case is simple, but in 3D this starts to be a problem. See:
Make a sphere with equidistant vertices
sphere subdivision triangulation
As you can see there are quite a few approaches to do this (there are much more of them even using Fibonacci sequence generated spiral) which are more or less hard to grasp or implement.
However If you want to generalize this into ND space you need to chose general approach. I would try to do something like this:
Place p uniformly distributed place inside bounding hypersphere
each point should have position,velocity and acceleration vectors. You can also place the points randomly (just ensure none are at the same position)...
For each p compute acceleration
each p should retract any other point (opposite of gravity).
update position
just do a Newton D'Alembert physics simulation in ND. Do not forget to include some dampening of speed so the simulation will stop in time. Bound the position and speed to the sphere so points will not cross it's border nor they would reflect the speed inwards.
loop #2 until max speed of any p crosses some threshold
This will more or less accurately place p points on the circumference of ND hypersphere. So you got minimal distance d between them. If you got some special dependency between n and p then there might be better configurations then this but for arbitrary numbers I think this approach should be safe enough.
Now by modifying #2 rules you can achieve 2 different outcomes. One filling hypersphere surface (by placing massive negative mass into center of surface) and second filling its volume. For these two options also the radius will be different. For one you need to use surface and for the other volume...
Here example of similar simulation used to solve a geometry problem:
How to implement a constraint solver for 2-D geometry?
Here preview of 3D surface case:
The number on top is the max abs speed of particles used to determine the simulations stopped and the white-ish lines are speed vectors. You need to carefully select the acceleration and dampening coefficients so the simulation is fast ...
Currently I'm doing benchmarks on time series indexing algorithms. Since most of the time no reference implementations are available, I have to write my own implementations (all in Java). At the moment I am stuck a little at section 6.2 of a paper called Indexing multi-dimensional time-series with support for multiple distance measures available here in PDF : http://hadjieleftheriou.com/papers/vldbj04-2.pdf
A MBR (minimum bounding rectangle) is basically a rectanglular cubiod with some coordinates and directions. As an example P and Q are two MBRs with P.coord={0,0,0} and P.dir={1,1,3} and Q.coords={0.5,0.5,1} and Q.dir={1,1,1} where the first entries represent the time dimension.
Now I would like to calculate the MINDIST(Q,P) between Q and P :
However I am not sure how to implement the "intersection of two MBRs in the time dimension" (Dim 1) since I am not sure what the intersection in the time dimension actually means. It is also not clear what h_Q, l_Q, l_P, h_P mean, since this notation is not explained (my guess is they mean something like highest or lowest value of a dimension in the intersection).
I would highly appreciate it, if someone could explain to me how to calculate the intersection of two MBRs in the first dimension and maybe enlighten me with an interpretation of the notation. Thanks!
Well, Figure 14 in your paper explains the time intersection. And the rectangles are axis-aligned, thus it makes sense to use high and low on each coordinate.
The multiplication sign you see is not a cross product, just a normal multiplication, because on both sides of it you have a scalar, and not vectors.
However I must agree that the discussions on page 14 are rather fuzzy, but they seem to tell us that both types of intersections (complete and partial), when they are have a t subscript, mean the norm of the intersection along the t coordinate.
Thus it seems you could factorize the time intersection to get a formula that would be :
It is worth noting that, maybe counter-intuitively, when your objects don't intersect on the time plane, their MINDIST is defined to be 0.
Hence the following pseudo-code ;
mindist(P, Q)
{
if( Q.coord[0] + Q.dir[0] < P.coord[0] ||
Q.coord[0] > P.coord[0] + P.dir[0] )
return 0;
time = min(Q.coord[0] + Q.dir[0], P.coord[0] + P.dir[0]) - max(Q.coord[0], P.coord[0]);
sum = 0;
for(d=1; d<D; ++d)
{
if( Q.coord[d] + Q.dir[d] < P.coord[d] )
x = Q.coord[d] + Q.dir[d] - P.coord[d];
else if( P.coord[d] + P.dir[d] < Q.coord[d] )
x = P.coord[d] + P.dir[d] - Q.coord[d];
else
x = 0;
sum += x*x;
}
return sqrt(time * sum);
}
Note the absolute values in the paper are unnecessary since we just checked which values where bigger, and we thus know we only add positive numbers.
Consider a discrete curve defined by the points (x1,y1), (x2,y2), (x3,y3), ... ,(xn,yn)
Define a constant SUM = y1+y2+y3+...+yn. Say we change the value of some k number of y points (increase or decrease) such that the total sum of these changed points is less than or equal to the constant SUM.
What would be the best possible manner to adjust the other y points given the following two conditions:
The total sum of the y points (y1'+y2'+...+yn') should remain constant ie, SUM.
The curve should retain as much of its original shape as possible.
A simple solution would be to define some delta as follows:
delta = (ym1' + ym2' + ym3' + ... + ymk') - (ym1 + ym2 + ym3 + ... + ymk')
and to distribute this delta over the rest of the points equally. Here ym1' is the value of the modified point after modification and ym1 is the value of the modified point before modification to give delta as the total difference in modification.
However this would not ensure a totally smoothed curve as area near changed points would appear ragged. Does a better solution/algorithm exist for the this problem?
I've used the following approach, though it is a bit OTT.
Consider adding d[i] to y[i], to get s[i], the smoothed value.
We seek to minimise
S = Sum{ 1<=i<N-1 | sqr( s[i+1]-2*s[i]+s[i-1] } + f*Sum{ 0<=i<N | sqr( d[i])}
The first term is a sum of the squares of (an approximate) second derivative of the curve, and the second term penalises moving away from the original. f is a (positive) constant. A little algebra recasts this as
S = sqr( ||A*d - b||)
where the matrix A has a nice structure, and indeed A'*A is penta-diagonal, which means that the normal equations (ie d = Inv(A'*A)*A'*b) can be solved efficiently. Note that d is computed directly, there is no need to initialise it.
Given the solution d to this problem we can compute the solution d^ to the same problem but with the constraint One'*d = 0 (where One is the vector of all ones) like this
d^ = d - (One'*d/Q) * e
e = Inv(A'*A)*One
Q = One'*e
What value to use for f? Well a simple approach is to try out this procedure on sample curves for various fs and pick a value that looks good. Another approach is to pick a estimate of smoothness, for example the rms of the second derivative, and then a value that should attain, and then search for an f that gives that value. As a general rule, the bigger f is the less smooth the smoothed curve will be.
Some motivation for all this. The aim is to find a 'smooth' curve 'close' to a given one. For this we need a measure of smoothness (the first term in S) and a measure of closeness (the second term. Why these measures? Well, each are easy to compute, and each are quadratic in the variables (the d[]); this will mean that the problem becomes an instance of linear least squares for which there are efficient algorithms available. Moreover each term in each sum depends on nearby values of the variables, which will in turn mean that the 'inverse covariance' (A'*A) will have a banded structure and so the least squares problem can be solved efficiently. Why introduce f? Well, if we didn't have f (or set it to 0) we could minimise S by setting d[i] = -y[i], getting a perfectly smooth curve s[] = 0, which has nothing to do with the y curve. On the other hand if f is gigantic, then to minimise s we should concentrate on the second term, and set d[i] = 0, and our 'smoothed' curve is just the original. So it's reasonable to suppose that as we vary f, the corresponding solutions will vary between being very smooth but far from y (small f) and being close to y but a bit rough (large f).
It's often said that the normal equations, whose use I advocate here, are a bad way to solve least squares problems, and this is generally true. However with 'nice' banded systems -- like the one here -- the loss of stability through using the normal equations is not so great, while the gain in speed is so great. I've used this approach to smooth curves with many thousands of points in a reasonable time.
To see what A is, consider the case where we had 4 points. Then our expression for S comes down to:
sqr( s[2] - 2*s[1] + s[0]) + sqr( s[3] - 2*s[2] + s[1]) + f*(d[0]*d[0] + .. + d[3]*d[3]).
If we substitute s[i] = y[i] + d[i] in this we get, for example,
s[2] - 2*s[1] + s[0] = d[2]-2*d[1]+d[0] + y[2]-2*y[1]+y[0]
and so we see that for this to be sqr( ||A*d-b||) we should take
A = ( 1 -2 1 0)
( 0 1 -2 1)
( f 0 0 0)
( 0 f 0 0)
( 0 0 f 0)
( 0 0 0 f)
and
b = ( -(y[2]-2*y[1]+y[0]))
( -(y[3]-2*y[2]+y[1]))
( 0 )
( 0 )
( 0 )
( 0 )
In an implementation, though, you probably wouldn't want to form A and b, as they are only going to be used to form the normal equation terms, A'*A and A'*b. It would be simpler to accumulate these directly.
This is a constrained optimization problem. The functional to be minimized is the integrated difference of the original curve and the modified curve. The constraints are the area under the curve and the new locations of the modified points. It is not easy to write such codes on your own. It is better to use some open source optimization codes, like this one: ool.
what about to keep the same dynamic range?
compute original min0,max0 y-values
smooth y-values
compute new min1,max1 y-values
linear interpolate all values to match original min max y
y=min1+(y-min1)*(max0-min0)/(max1-min1)
that is it
Not sure for the area but this should keep the shape much closer to original one. I got this Idea right now while reading your question and now I face similar problem so I try to code it and try right now anyway +1 for the getting me this Idea :)
You can adapt this and combine with the area
So before this compute the area and apply #1..#4 and after that compute new area. Then multiply all values by old_area/new_area ratio. If you have also negative values and not computing absolute area then you have to handle positive and negative areas separately and find multiplication ration to best fit original area for booth at once.
[edit1] some results for constant dynamic range
As you can see the shape is slightly shifting to the left. Each image is after applying few hundreds smooth operations. I am thinking of subdivision to local min max intervals to improve this ...
[edit2] have finished the filter for mine own purposes
void advanced_smooth(double *p,int n)
{
int i,j,i0,i1;
double a0,a1,b0,b1,dp,w0,w1;
double *p0,*p1,*w; int *q;
if (n<3) return;
p0=new double[n<<2]; if (p0==NULL) return;
p1=p0+n;
w =p1+n;
q =(int*)((double*)(w+n));
// compute original min,max
for (a0=p[0],i=0;i<n;i++) if (a0>p[i]) a0=p[i];
for (a1=p[0],i=0;i<n;i++) if (a1<p[i]) a1=p[i];
for (i=0;i<n;i++) p0[i]=p[i]; // store original values for range restoration
// compute local min max positions to p1[]
dp=0.01*(a1-a0); // min delta treshold
// compute first derivation
p1[0]=0.0; for (i=1;i<n;i++) p1[i]=p[i]-p[i-1];
for (i=1;i<n-1;i++) // eliminate glitches
if (p1[i]*p1[i-1]<0.0)
if (p1[i]*p1[i+1]<0.0)
if (fabs(p1[i])<=dp)
p1[i]=0.5*(p1[i-1]+p1[i+1]);
for (i0=1;i0;) // remove zeros from derivation
for (i0=0,i=0;i<n;i++)
if (fabs(p1[i])<dp)
{
if ((i> 0)&&(fabs(p1[i-1])>=dp)) { i0=1; p1[i]=p1[i-1]; }
else if ((i<n-1)&&(fabs(p1[i+1])>=dp)) { i0=1; p1[i]=p1[i+1]; }
}
// find local min,max to q[]
q[n-2]=0; q[n-1]=0; for (i=1;i<n-1;i++) if (p1[i]*p1[i-1]<0.0) q[i-1]=1; else q[i-1]=0;
for (i=0;i<n;i++) // set sign as +max,-min
if ((q[i])&&(p1[i]<-dp)) q[i]=-q[i]; // this shifts smooth curve to the left !!!
// compute weights
for (i0=0,i1=1;i1<n;i0=i1,i1++) // loop through all local min,max intervals
{
for (;(!q[i1])&&(i1<n-1);i1++); // <i0,i1>
b0=0.5*(p[i0]+p[i1]);
b1=fabs(p[i1]-p[i0]);
if (b1>=1e-6)
for (b1=0.35/b1,i=i0;i<=i1;i++) // compute weights bigger near local min max
w[i]=0.8+(fabs(p[i]-b0)*b1);
}
// smooth few times
for (j=0;j<5;j++)
{
for (i=0;i<n ;i++) p1[i]=p[i]; // store data to avoid shifting by using half filtered data
for (i=1;i<n-1;i++) // FIR smooth filter
{
w0=w[i];
w1=(1.0-w0)*0.5;
p[i]=(w1*p1[i-1])+(w0*p1[i])+(w1*p1[i+1]);
}
for (i=1;i<n-1;i++) // avoid local min,max shifting too much
{
if (q[i]>0) // local max
{
if (p[i]<p[i-1]) p[i]=p[i-1]; // can not be lower then neigbours
if (p[i]<p[i+1]) p[i]=p[i+1];
}
if (q[i]<0) // local min
{
if (p[i]>p[i-1]) p[i]=p[i-1]; // can not be higher then neigbours
if (p[i]>p[i+1]) p[i]=p[i+1];
}
}
}
for (i0=0,i1=1;i1<n;i0=i1,i1++) // loop through all local min,max intervals
{
for (;(!q[i1])&&(i1<n-1);i1++); // <i0,i1>
// restore original local min,max
a0=p0[i0]; b0=p[i0];
a1=p0[i1]; b1=p[i1];
if (a0>a1)
{
dp=a0; a0=a1; a1=dp;
dp=b0; b0=b1; b1=dp;
}
b1-=b0;
if (b1>=1e-6)
for (dp=(a1-a0)/b1,i=i0;i<=i1;i++)
p[i]=a0+((p[i]-b0)*dp);
}
delete[] p0;
}
so p[n] is the input/output data. There are few things that can be tweaked like:
weights computation (constants 0.8 and 0.35 means weights are <0.8,0.8+0.35/2>)
number of smooth passes (now 5 in the for loop)
the bigger the weight the less the filtering 1.0 means no change
The main Idea behind is:
find local extremes
compute weights for smoothing
so near local extremes are almost none change of the output
smooth
repair dynamic range per each interval between all local extremes
[Notes]
I did also try to restore the area but that is incompatible with mine task because it distorts the shape a lot. So if you really need the area then focus on that and not on the shape. The smoothing causes signal to shrink mostly so after area restoration the shape rise on magnitude.
Actual filter state has none markable side shifting of shape (which was the main goal for me). Some images for more bumpy signal (the original filter was extremly poor on this):
As you can see no visible signal shape shifting. The local extremes has tendency to create sharp spikes after very heavy smoothing but that was expected
Hope it helps ...
I am trying to create an android smartphone application which uses Apples iBeacon technology to determine the current indoor location of itself. I already managed to get all available beacons and calculate the distance to them via the rssi signal.
Currently I face the problem, that I am not able to find any library or implementation of an algorithm, which calculates the estimated location in 2D by using 3 (or more) distances of fixed points with the condition, that these distances are not accurate (which means, that the three "trilateration-circles" do not intersect in one point).
I would be deeply grateful if anybody can post me a link or an implementation of that in any common programming language (Java, C++, Python, PHP, Javascript or whatever). I already read a lot on stackoverflow about that topic, but could not find any answer I were able to convert in code (only some mathematical approaches with matrices and inverting them, calculating with vectors or stuff like that).
EDIT
I thought about an own approach, which works quite well for me, but is not that efficient and scientific. I iterate over every meter (or like in my example 0.1 meter) of the location grid and calculate the possibility of that location to be the actual position of the handset by comparing the distance of that location to all beacons and the distance I calculate with the received rssi signal.
Code example:
public Location trilaterate(ArrayList<Beacon> beacons, double maxX, double maxY)
{
for (double x = 0; x <= maxX; x += .1)
{
for (double y = 0; y <= maxY; y += .1)
{
double currentLocationProbability = 0;
for (Beacon beacon : beacons)
{
// distance difference between calculated distance to beacon transmitter
// (rssi-calculated distance) and current location:
// |sqrt(dX^2 + dY^2) - distanceToTransmitter|
double distanceDifference = Math
.abs(Math.sqrt(Math.pow(beacon.getLocation().x - x, 2)
+ Math.pow(beacon.getLocation().y - y, 2))
- beacon.getCurrentDistanceToTransmitter());
// weight the distance difference with the beacon calculated rssi-distance. The
// smaller the calculated rssi-distance is, the more the distance difference
// will be weighted (it is assumed, that nearer beacons measure the distance
// more accurate)
distanceDifference /= Math.pow(beacon.getCurrentDistanceToTransmitter(), 0.9);
// sum up all weighted distance differences for every beacon in
// "currentLocationProbability"
currentLocationProbability += distanceDifference;
}
addToLocationMap(currentLocationProbability, x, y);
// the previous line is my approach, I create a Set of Locations with the 5 most probable locations in it to estimate the accuracy of the measurement afterwards. If that is not necessary, a simple variable assignment for the most probable location would do the job also
}
}
Location bestLocation = getLocationSet().first().location;
bestLocation.accuracy = calculateLocationAccuracy();
Log.w("TRILATERATION", "Location " + bestLocation + " best with accuracy "
+ bestLocation.accuracy);
return bestLocation;
}
Of course, the downside of that is, that I have on a 300m² floor 30.000 locations I had to iterate over and measure the distance to every single beacon I got a signal from (if that would be 5, I do 150.000 calculations only for determine a single location). That's a lot - so I will let the question open and hope for some further solutions or a good improvement of this existing solution in order to make it more efficient.
Of course it has not to be a Trilateration approach, like the original title of this question was, it is also good to have an algorithm which includes more than three beacons for the location determination (Multilateration).
If the current approach is fine except for being too slow, then you could speed it up by recursively subdividing the plane. This works sort of like finding nearest neighbors in a kd-tree. Suppose that we are given an axis-aligned box and wish to find the approximate best solution in the box. If the box is small enough, then return the center.
Otherwise, divide the box in half, either by x or by y depending on which side is longer. For both halves, compute a bound on the solution quality as follows. Since the objective function is additive, sum lower bounds for each beacon. The lower bound for a beacon is the distance of the circle to the box, times the scaling factor. Recursively find the best solution in the child with the lower lower bound. Examine the other child only if the best solution in the first child is worse than the other child's lower bound.
Most of the implementation work here is the box-to-circle distance computation. Since the box is axis-aligned, we can use interval arithmetic to determine the precise range of distances from box points to the circle center.
P.S.: Math.hypot is a nice function for computing 2D Euclidean distances.
Instead of taking confidence levels of individual beacons into account, I would instead try to assign an overall confidence level for your result after you make the best guess you can with the available data. I don't think the only available metric (perceived power) is a good indication of accuracy. With poor geometry or a misbehaving beacon, you could be trusting poor data highly. It might make better sense to come up with an overall confidence level based on how well the perceived distance to the beacons line up with the calculated point assuming you trust all beacons equally.
I wrote some Python below that comes up with a best guess based on the provided data in the 3-beacon case by calculating the two points of intersection of circles for the first two beacons and then choosing the point that best matches the third. It's meant to get started on the problem and is not a final solution. If beacons don't intersect, it slightly increases the radius of each up until they do meet or a threshold is met. Likewise, it makes sure the third beacon agrees within a settable threshold. For n-beacons, I would pick 3 or 4 of the strongest signals and use those. There are tons of optimizations that could be done and I think this is a trial-by-fire problem due to the unwieldy nature of beaconing.
import math
beacons = [[0.0,0.0,7.0],[0.0,10.0,7.0],[10.0,5.0,16.0]] # x, y, radius
def point_dist(x1,y1,x2,y2):
x = x2-x1
y = y2-y1
return math.sqrt((x*x)+(y*y))
# determines two points of intersection for two circles [x,y,radius]
# returns None if the circles do not intersect
def circle_intersection(beacon1,beacon2):
r1 = beacon1[2]
r2 = beacon2[2]
dist = point_dist(beacon1[0],beacon1[1],beacon2[0],beacon2[1])
heron_root = (dist+r1+r2)*(-dist+r1+r2)*(dist-r1+r2)*(dist+r1-r2)
if ( heron_root > 0 ):
heron = 0.25*math.sqrt(heron_root)
xbase = (0.5)*(beacon1[0]+beacon2[0]) + (0.5)*(beacon2[0]-beacon1[0])*(r1*r1-r2*r2)/(dist*dist)
xdiff = 2*(beacon2[1]-beacon1[1])*heron/(dist*dist)
ybase = (0.5)*(beacon1[1]+beacon2[1]) + (0.5)*(beacon2[1]-beacon1[1])*(r1*r1-r2*r2)/(dist*dist)
ydiff = 2*(beacon2[0]-beacon1[0])*heron/(dist*dist)
return (xbase+xdiff,ybase-ydiff),(xbase-xdiff,ybase+ydiff)
else:
# no intersection, need to pseudo-increase beacon power and try again
return None
# find the two points of intersection between beacon0 and beacon1
# will use beacon2 to determine the better of the two points
failing = True
power_increases = 0
while failing and power_increases < 10:
res = circle_intersection(beacons[0],beacons[1])
if ( res ):
intersection = res
else:
beacons[0][2] *= 1.001
beacons[1][2] *= 1.001
power_increases += 1
continue
failing = False
# make sure the best fit is within x% (10% of the total distance from the 3rd beacon in this case)
# otherwise the results are too far off
THRESHOLD = 0.1
if failing:
print 'Bad Beacon Data (Beacon0 & Beacon1 don\'t intersection after many "power increases")'
else:
# finding best point between beacon1 and beacon2
dist1 = point_dist(beacons[2][0],beacons[2][1],intersection[0][0],intersection[0][1])
dist2 = point_dist(beacons[2][0],beacons[2][1],intersection[1][0],intersection[1][1])
if ( math.fabs(dist1-beacons[2][2]) < math.fabs(dist2-beacons[2][2]) ):
best_point = intersection[0]
best_dist = dist1
else:
best_point = intersection[1]
best_dist = dist2
best_dist_diff = math.fabs(best_dist-beacons[2][2])
if best_dist_diff < THRESHOLD*best_dist:
print best_point
else:
print 'Bad Beacon Data (Beacon2 distance to best point not within threshold)'
If you want to trust closer beacons more, you may want to calculate the intersection points between the two closest beacons and then use the farther beacon to tie-break. Keep in mind that almost anything you do with "confidence levels" for the individual measurements will be a hack at best. Since you will always be working with very bad data, you will defintiely need to loosen up the power_increases limit and threshold percentage.
You have 3 points : A(xA,yA,zA), B(xB,yB,zB) and C(xC,yC,zC), which respectively are approximately at dA, dB and dC from you goal point G(xG,yG,zG).
Let's say cA, cB and cC are the confidence rate ( 0 < cX <= 1 ) of each point.
Basically, you might take something really close to 1, like {0.95,0.97,0.99}.
If you don't know, try different coefficient depending of distance avg. If distance is really big, you're likely to be not very confident about it.
Here is the way i'll do it :
var sum = (cA*dA) + (cB*dB) + (cC*dC);
dA = cA*dA/sum;
dB = cB*dB/sum;
dC = cC*dC/sum;
xG = (xA*dA) + (xB*dB) + (xC*dC);
yG = (yA*dA) + (yB*dB) + (yC*dC);
xG = (zA*dA) + (zB*dB) + (zC*dC);
Basic, and not really smart but will do the job for some simple tasks.
EDIT
You can take any confidence coef you want in [0,inf[, but IMHO, restraining at [0,1] is a good idea to keep a realistic result.
I'm trying to work out how to write an algorithm to randomly place circles of R radius, in a 2d rectangle of arbitrary dimensions, such that each placed circle is at least D distance away from other circles in the rectangle,
The rectangle doesn't need to be filled, to be more specific older circles may be destroyed, so I need to be able to place a new circle that respects the positions of the last N circles I've already placed (say 5 for eg), if it can't satisfy these conditions then I could handle it seperately.
Can anyone help me how to deduce such an algorithm, or perhaps point to some research that may cover this?
1 Place circle at random location
2 Loop over previous circles
3 if too close
4 delete new circle
5 goto 1
6 if need more circles
7 goto 1
To determine if there is room
Choose resolution required, say delta = D/100
for( x = 0; x < rectangle_size x += delta )
for( y = 0; y < rectangle_size y += delta )
unset failed
loop over circles
if x,y less than 2D from circle
set failed
break from circle loop
if not failed
return 'yes there is room'
return 'no, there is no room'
If you expect to have so many circles that there only a few holes left with room for new circles, then you could do this
clear candidates
Choose resolution required, say delta = D/100
for( x = 0; x < rectangle_size x += delta )
for( y = 0; y < rectangle_size y += delta )
unset failed
loop over circles
if x,y less than 2D from circle
set failed
break from circle loop
if not failed
add x,y to candidates
if no candidates
return 'there is no room'
randomly choose location for new circle from candidates
1. Pick random startingspot.
2. Place circle
3. Move in random direction at least D
4. Goto 2 until distance to edge is < D or the distance to another circles center is < 2D
The first algorithm to come to mind is simulated annealing. Basically, you start out with the easiest solution, probably just a grid, then you "shake the box" in random ways to see if you get better answers. First you do large shakes, then gradually make them smaller. It sounds a little chaotic, and doesn't always produce the absolute best solution, but when something is computationally intensive it usually comes pretty close in a lot shorter time.
It really depends on what you mean by "random". Assuming that you want as close to a uniform distribution as possible, you will probably have to use an iterative solution like the one ravenspoint suggested. It may be slightly faster to place all of the circles randomly and then start replacing circles that don't meet your distance condition.
If the randomness isn't that important - i.e. if it just has to "look" random (which is probably fine if you're not doing something scientific), then grid your space up and place your N circles by choosing N indices in the grid. You could make it slightly more "random" by adding some noise to the location that you place the circle inside the grid. This would work really well for sparse placement.