What's the best way to draw an arc using only x-y position movements? For example let's say I want to draw a circle with radius 4 at point (4,4). Let's saw my "drawer" starts at (4,0) and a resolution of .1 steps in each direction. How would I create a sequence of movements to complete the circle?
If that's not clear I can try to explain better.
If I understand your question properly, you are looking for Bresenham's algorithm. You can read about it here, for example.
You want the midpoint circle algorithm, also known as Bresenham's circle algorithm (even though Bresenham didn't develop it). Wikipedia has a reasonably good article about it; there was also a Python implementation on the LiteratePrograms wiki (which is no more – the link is to the Wayback Machine), and several implementations on Rosetta Code. The idea behind it is to walk in a circle, successively computing each coordinate from the previous one (avoiding more expensive math operations). You always move in one direction (say "up"), and use the computed variable to decide whether or not to turn.
Related
I'm trying to understand the difference between these two algorithms and how they differ in solving a problem. I have looked at the algorithms and the internals of them. It would be good to hear from others who already experienced with them. Specially, I would like to know how they would behave differently on the same problem.
Thank you.
Difference
The main difference between the two is the direction in which they move to reach the local minima (or maxima).
In Hill Climbing we move only one element of the vector space, we then calculate the value of function and replace it if the value improves. we keep on changing one element of the vector till we can't move in a direction such that position improves. In 3D sapce the move can be visualised as moving in any one of the axial direction along x,y or z axis.
In Gradient Descent we take steps in the direction of negative gradient of current point to reach the point of minima (positive in case of maxima). For eg, in 3D Space the direction need not to be an axial direction.
In addition to radbrawler's answer, they are however similar in the greedy approach that both use to find local minima/maxima. I may consider Gradient descent as the continuous version of the discrete Hill climbing technique.
BACKGROUND
So I'm creating a program that recognizes chess moves. So far, I have implemented a fair number of algorithms to come up with the best results possible. What I've found so far is that the combination of undistorting an image (using undistort ), then applying a histogram equalization algorithm, and finally the goodFeaturesToTrack algorithm (I've found this to be better than the harris corner detection) yields pretty decent results. The goal here is to have every corner of every square accounted for with a point. That way, when I apply canny edge detection, I can process individual squares.
EXAMPLE
WHAT I'VE CONSIDERED
http://www.nandanbanerjee.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:buttercup-chess-robot&catid=78&Itemid=470
To summarize the link above, the idea is to find the upper-leftmost, upper-rightmost, lower-leftmost, and lower-rightmost points and divide the distance between them by eight. From there you would come up with probable points and compare them to the points that are actually on the board. If one of the points doesn't match, simply replace the point.
I've also considered some sort of mode, like finding the distance between neighboring points and storing them in a list. Then I would perform a mode operation to figure out the most probable distance and use that to draw points.
QUESTION
As you can see, the points are fairly accurate over most of the squares (though there are random points that do not do what I want). My question is what do you think the best way to find all corners on the chessboard (I'm open to all ideas) and could you give me a somewhat detailed description (just enough to steer me in the right direction or more if you choose :)? Also, (and this is a secondary question) do you have any recommendations on how to proceed in order to best recognize a move? I'm attempting to implement multiple ways of doing so and am going to compare methods to obtain best results! Thank you.
Please read these two links:
http://www.aishack.in/tutorials/sudoku-grabber-opencv-plot/
How to remove convexity defects in a Sudoku square?
I'm developping a tool for radiotherapy inverse planning based in a pencil-beam approach. An important step in these methods (particularly in dose calculation) is a ray-tracing from many sources and one of the most used algorithms is Siddon's one (here there is a nice short description http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2014/poster/pdf/P4218_CT_reconstruction_iterative_algebraic.pdf). Now, I will try to simplify my question:
The input data is a CT image (a 3D matrix with values) and some source positions around the image. You can imagine a cube and many points around, all at same distance but different orientation angles, where the radiation rays come from. Each ray will go through the volume and a value is assigned to each voxel according to the distance from the source. The advantage of Siddon's algorithm is that the length is calculated on-time during the iterative process of the ray-tracing. However, I know that Bresenham's algorithm is an efficient way to evaluate the path from one point to another in a matrix. Thus, the length from the source to a specific voxel could be easily calculated as the euclidean distance two points, even during Bresenham's iterative process.
So then, knowing that both are methods quite old already and efficient, there is a definitive advantage of using Siddon instead of Bresenham? Maybe I'm missing an important detail here but it is weird to me that in these dose calculation procedures Bresenham is not really an option and always Siddon appears as the gold standard.
Thanks for any comment or reply!
Good day.
It seems to me that in most applications involving medical ray tracing, you want not only the distance from a source to a particular voxel, but also the intersection lengths of that path with every single voxel on its way. Now, Bresenham gives you the voxels on that path, but not the intersection lengths, while Siddon does.
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.
I found some solutions, but they're too messy.
Yes. The Chebyshev center, x*, of a set C is the center of the largest ball that lies inside C. [Boyd, p. 416] When C is a convex set, then this problem is a convex optimization problem.
Better yet, when C is a polyhedron, then this problem becomes a linear program.
Suppose the m-sided polyhedron C is defined by a set of linear inequalities: ai^T x <= bi, for i in {1, 2, ..., m}. Then the problem becomes
maximize R
such that ai^T x + R||a|| <= bi, i in {1, 2, ..., m}
R >= 0
where the variables of minimization are R and x, and ||a|| is the Euclidean norm of a.
Perhaps these "too messy" solutions are what you actually looking for, and there are no simplier ones?
I can suggest a simple, but potentially imprecise solution, which uses numerical analysis. Assume you have a resilient ball, and you inflate it, starting from radius zero. If its center is not in the center you're looking for, then it will move, because the walls would "push" it in the proper direction, until it reaches the point, from where he can't move anywhere else. I guess, for a convex polygon, the ball will eventually move to the point where it has maximum radius.
You can write a program that emulates the process of circle inflation. Start with an arbitrary point, and "inflate" the circle until it reaches a wall. If you keep inflating it, it will move in one of the directions that don't make it any closer to the walls it already encounters. You can determine the possible ways where it could move by drawing the lines that are parallel to the walls through the center you're currently at.
In this example, the ball would move in one of the directions marked with green:
(source: coldattic.info)
Then, move your ball slightly in one of these directions (a good choice might be moving along the bisection of the angle), and repeat the step. If the new radius would be less than the one you have, retreat and decrease the pace you move it. When you'll have to make your pace less than a value of, say, 1 inch, then you've found the centre with precision of 1 in. (If you're going to draw it on a screen, precision of 0.5 pixel would be good enough, I guess).
If an imprecise solution is enough for you, this is simple enough, I guess.
Summary: It is not trivial. So it is very unlikely that it will not get messy. But there are some lecture slides which you may find useful.
Source: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/30304481/finding-the-maximum-inscribed-circle-in-c.aspx
Your problem is not trivial, and there
is no C# code that does this straight
out of the box. You will have to write
your own. I found the problem
intriguing, and did some research, so
here are a few clues that may help.
First, here's an answer in "plain
English" from mathforum.org:
Link
The answer references Voronoi Diagrams
as a methodology for making the
process more efficient. In researching
Voronoi diagrams, in conjunction with
the "maximum empty circle" problem
(same problem, different name), I came
across this informative paper:
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/teaching/compgeo/slides/vd_slides.pdf
It was written by Martin Held, a
Computational Geometry professor at
the University of Salzberg in Austria.
Further investigation of Dr. Held's
writings yielded a couple of good
articles:
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/projects/vroni/vroni.html
http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~held/projects/triang/triang.html
Further research into Vornoi Diagrams
yielded the following site:
http://www.voronoi.com/
This site has lots of information,
code in various languages, and links
to other resources.
Finally, here is the URL to the
Mathematics and Computational Sciences
Division of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (U.S.), a
wealth of information and links
regarding mathematics of all sorts:
http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/
-- HTH,
Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP
The largest inscribed circle (I'm assuming it's unique) will intersect some of the faces tangentially, and may fail to intersect others. Let's call a face "relevant" if the largest inscribed circle intersects it, and "irrelevant" otherwise.
If your convex polygon is in fact a triangle, then the problem can be solved by calculating the triangle's incenter, by intersecting angle bisectors. This may seem a trivial case, but even when
your convex polygon is complicated, the inscribed circle will always be tangent to at least three faces (proof? seems geometrically obvious), and so its center can be calculated as the incenter of three relevant faces (extended outwards to make a triangle which circumscribes the original polygon).
Here we assume that no two such faces are parallel. If two are parallel, we have to interpret the "angle bisector" of two parallel lines to mean that third parallel line between them.
This immediately suggests a rather terrible algorithm: Consider all n-choose-3 subsets of faces, find the incenters of all triangles as above, and test each circle for containment in the original polygon. Maximize among those that are legal. But this is cubic in n and we can do much better.
But it's possible instead to identify faces that are irrelevant upfront: If a face is tangent
to some inscribed circle, then there is a region of points bounded by that face and by the two angle bisectors at its endpoints, wherein the circle's center must lie. If even the circle whose center lies at the farthest tip of that triangular region is "legal" (entirely contained in the polygon), then the face itself is irrelevant, and can be removed. The two faces touching it should be extended beyond it so that they meet.
By iteratively removing faces which are irrelevant in this sense, you should be able to reduce the
polygon to a triangle, or perhaps a trapezoid, at which point the problem will be easily solved, and its solution will still lie within the original polygon.