Imagine we have a 2D sky (10000x10000 coordinates). Anywhere on this sky we can have an aircraft, identified by its position (x, y). Any aircraft can start moving to another coordinates (in straight line).
There is a single component that manages all this positioning and movement. When a aircraft wants to move, it send it a message in the form of (start_pos, speed, end_pos). How can I tell in the component, when one aircraft will move in the line of sight of another (each aircraft has this as a property as radius of sight) in order to notify it. Note that many aircrafts can be moving at the same time. Also, this algorithm is good to be effective sa it can handle ~1000 planes.
If there is some constraint, that is limiting your solution - it can probably be removed. The problem is not fixed.
Use a line to represent the flight path.
Convert each line to a rectangle embracing it. The width of the rectangle is determined by your definition of "close" (The bigger the safety distance is, the wider the rectangle should be).
For each new flight plan:
Check if the new rectangle intersects with another rectangle.
If so, calculate when will each plane reach the collision point. If the time difference is too small (and you should define too small according to the scenario), refuse the new flight plan.
If you want to deal with the temporal aspect (i.e. dealing with the fact that the aircraft move), then I think a potentially simplification is lifting the problem by the time dimension (adding one more dimension - hence, the original problem, being 2D, becomes a 3D problem).
Then, the problem becomes a matter of finding the point where a line intersects a (tilted) cylinder. Finding all possible intersections would then be n^2; not too sure if that is efficient enough.
See Wikipedia:Quadtree for a data structure that will make it easy to find which airplanes are close to a given airplane. It will save you from doing O(N^2) tests for closeness.
You have good answers, I'll comment only on one aspect and probably not correctly
you say that you aircrafts move in form (start_pos, speed, end_pos)
if all aircrafts have such, let's call them, flightplans then you should be able to calculate directly when and where they will be within certain distance from each other, or when will they be at closest point from each other or if the will collide/get too near
So, if they indeed move according to the flightplans and do not deviate from them your problem is deterministic - it boils down to solving a set of equations, which for ~1000 planes is not such a big task.
If you do need to solve these equations faster you can employ the techniques described in other answers
using efficient structures that can speedup calculating distances (quadtree, octree, kd-trees),
splitting the problem to solve the equations only for some relevant future timeslice
prioritize solving equations for pairs for which the distance changes most rapidly
Of course converting time to a third dimension turns the aircrafts from points into lines and you end up searching for the closest points between two 3d lines (here's some math)
I actually found an answer to this question.
It is in the book Real-Time Collision Detection, p. 223. It's better named, as well: Intersecting Moving Sphere Against Sphere, where a 2D sphere is a circle. It's not so simple (and I may also violate some rights) to explain it here, but the basic idea is to fix one of the circles as a point, adding its radius to the radius of the moving one. The new direction for the moving one is the sum of the two original vectors.
Related
I am trying to write a Rigid body simulator, and during simulation, I am not only interested in finding whether two objects collide or not, but also the point as well as normal of collision. I have found lots of resources which actually says whether two OBB are colliding or not using separating axis theorem. Also I am interested in 3D representation of OBB. Now, if I know the axis with minimum overlap region for two colliding OBB, is there any way to find the point of collision and normal of collision? Also, there are two major cases of collision, first, point-face and second edge-edge.
I tried to google this problem, but almost every solution is only detecting collision with true or false.
Kindly somebody help!
Look at the scene in the direction of the motion (in other terms, apply a change of coordinates such that this direction becomes vertical, and drop the altitude). You get a 2D figure.
Considering the faces of the two boxes that face each other, you will see two hexagons each split in three parallelograms.
Then
Detect the intersections between the edges in 2D. From the section ratios along the edges, you can determine the actual z distances.
For all vertices, determine the face they fall on in the other box; and from the 3D equations, the piercing point of the viewing line into the face plane, hence the distance. (Repeat this for the vertices of A and B.)
Comparing the distances will tell you which collision happens first and give you the coordinates of the first meeting point (in the transformed system, the back to absolute coordinates).
The point-in-face problem is easy to implement as the facesare convex polygons.
I'm trying to optimally fill a 3D spherical volume with "particles" (represented by 3D XYZ vectors) that need to maintain a specific distance from each other, while attempting to minimize the amount of free space present in-between them.
There's one catch though- The particles themselves may fall on the boundary of the spherical volume- they just can't exist outside of it. Ideally, I'd like to maximize the number of particles that fall on this boundary (which makes this a kind of spherical packing problem, I suppose) and then fill the rest of the volume inwards.
Are there any kinds of algorithms out there that can solve this sort of thing? It doesn't need to be exact, but the key here is that the density of the final solution needs to be reasonably accurate (+/- ~5% of a "perfect" solution).
There is not a single formula which fills a sphere optimally with n spheres. On this wikipedia page you can see the optimal configurations for n <= 12. For the optimal configurations for n <= 500 you can view this site. As you can see on these sites different numbers of spheres have different optimal symmetry groups.
your constraints are a bit vague so hard to say for sure but I would try field approach for this. First see:
Computational complexity and shape nesting
Path generation for non-intersecting disc movement on a plane
How to implement a constraint solver for 2-D geometry?
and sub-links where you can find some examples of this approach.
Now the algo:
place N particles randomly inside sphere
N should be safely low so it is smaller then your solution particles count.
start field simulation
so use your solution rules to create attractive and repulsive forces and drive your particles via Newton D'Alembert physics. Do not forget to add friction (so movement will stop after time) and sphere volume boundary.
stop when your particles stop moving
so if max(|particles_velocity|)<threshold stop.
now check if all particles are correctly placed
not breaking any of your rules. If yes then remember this placement as solution and try again from #1 with N+1 particles. If not stop and use last correct solution.
To speed this up you can add more particles instead of using (N+1) similarly to binary search (add 32 particles until you can ... then just 16 ... ). Also you do not need to use random locations in #1 for the other runs. you can let the other particles start positions where they were placed in last run solution.
How to determine accuracy of the solution is entirely different matter. As you did not provide exact rules then we can only guess. I would try to estimate ideal particle density and compute the ideal particle count based on sphere volume. You can use this also for the initial guess of N and then compare with the final N.
I would like to find the best fit plane from a list of 3D points. It means the plane has the least square distance from all the points. I read the article
Best fit plane by minimizing orthogonal distances
and
3D Least Squares Plane
I fully understand the solutio but it turns other to be impractical in my situation. I need to read a very very large list of 3d points, direcltly impementation would result in ill posed problem. Even I subtract the data with their average,(refere to the document here-> part3 : http://www.geometrictools.com/Documentation/LeastSquaresFitting.pdf) the number is still very large. So what can I do?
Is there an iterative way to implement it ?
I have changed the way to ask the question, I hope may be there are someone can give me more advices on it ?
Given a list of 3D Points
{(x0,y0,z0),
(x1,y1,z1)...
(xn-1,yn-1,zn-1)}
I would like to construct a plane by fitting all the 3D points. In this sense, I mean to find the plane with format (Ax+By+Cy+D = 0), thus its uses four parameters(A,B,C,D) to characterize a plane. The sum of distance between each point and the plane should be minimium.
I do try the menthod provided in the below link
http://www.geometrictools.com/Documentation/LeastSquaresFitting.pdf
But there are two problems:
-During calculation, the above algorithm needs to do summation of all points value, which lead to overflow problem if my number of points increases
-given newly added points, it has to do all the calculation again, is there a way to use the before calculated plane parameter and the newly given points to somehow fine tune the planes parameters?
PS:I am a bit greedy, if we need to involve all the points, it is possible that the plane finally obtained isn't good enough.I am thinking of using random sample consensus(RANSAC), is it the right direction?
If you are expecting a plane then most of the points are not that useful since even a handful should give you a good approximation of the final solution (module a bit more noise).
So here's the solution. Sample down your data set to something that works and run the smaller set through the fitting algorithm.
If you are not expecting that the points are on a plane then sub-sampling should still work, but you must consider error ranges for any solution (since they will likely be fairly big).
I am solving a fourth order non-linear partial differential equation in time and space (t, x) on a square domain with periodic or free boundary conditions with MATHEMATICA.
WITHOUT using conformal mapping, what boundary conditions at the edge or corner could I use to make the square domain "seem" like a circular domain for my non-linear partial differential equation which is cartesian?
The options I would NOT like to use are:
Conformal mapping
changing my equation to polar/cylindrical coordinates?
This is something I am pursuing purely out of interest just in case someone screams bloody murder if misconstrued as a homework problem! :P
That question was asked on the time people found out that the world was spherical. They wanted to make rectangular maps of the surface of the world...
It is not possible.
The reason why is not possible is because the sphere has an intrinsic curvature, while the cube/parallelepiped has not. It can be shown that for two elements with different intrinsic curvatures, their surfaces cannot be mapped while either keeping constant infinitesimal distances, either the distance between two points is given by the euclidean distance.
The easiest way to understand this problem is to pick some rectangular piece of paper and try to make a sphere of it without locally stretch it or compress it (you can fold). You can't. On the other hand, you can make a cylinder surface, because the cylinder has also no intrinsic curvature.
In maps, normally people use one of the two options:
approximate the local surface of the sphere by a tangent plane and make a rectangle out of it. (a local map of some region)
make world maps but implement some curved lines everywhere identifying that the measuring distances must be made according to those lines.
This is also the main reason why when traveling from Europe to North America the airplanes seems to make a curve always trying to pass near canada. If we measured the distance from the rectangular map, we see that they should go on a strait line to minimize the distance. However, because we are mapping two different intrinsic curvatures, the real distance must be measured in a different way (and not via a strait line).
For 2D (in fact for nD) the same reasoning applies.
Here is a problem I am trying to solve:
I have an irregular shape. How would I go about evenly distributing 5 points on this shape so that the distance between each point is equal to each other?
David says this is impossible, but in fact there is an answer out of left field: just put all your points on top of each other! They'll all have the same distance to all the other points: zero.
In fact, that's the only algorithm that has a solution (i.e. all pairwise distances are the same) regardless of the input shape.
I know the question asks to put the points "evenly", but since that's not formally defined, I expect that was just an attempt to explain "all pairwise distances are the same", in which case my answer is "even".
this is mathematically impossible. It will only work for a small subset of base shapes.
There are however some solutions you might try:
Analytic approach. Start with a point P0, create a sphere around P0 and intersect it with the base shape, giving you a set of curves C0. Then create another point P1 somewhere on C0. Again, create a sphere around P1 and intersect it with C0, giving you a set of points C1, your third point P2 will be one of the points in C1. And so on and so forth. This approach guarantees distance constraints, but it also heavily depends on initial conditions.
Iterative approach. Essentially form-finding. You create some points on the object and you also create springs between the ones that share a distance constraint. Then you solve the spring forces and move your points accordingly. This will most likely push them away from the base shape, so you need to pull them back onto the base shape. Repeat until your points are no longer moving or until the distance constraint has been satisfied within tolerance.
Sampling approach. Convert your base geometry into a voxel space, and start scooping out all the voxels that are too close to a newly inserted point. This makes sure you never get two points too close together, but it also suffers from tolerance (and probably performance) issues.
If you can supply more information regarding the nature of your geometry and your constraints, a more specific answer becomes possible.
For folks stumbling across here in the future, check out Lloyd's algorithm.
The only way to position 5 points equally distant from one another (other than the trivial solution of putting them through the origin) is in the 4+ dimensional space. It is mathematically impossible to have 5 equally distanced object in 3D.
Four is the most you can have in 3D and that shape is a tetrahedron.