I have the need to determine the bounding rectangle for a polygon at an arbitrary angle. This picture illustrates what I need to do:
alt text http://kevlar.net/RotatedBoundingRectangle.png
The pink rectangle is what I need to determine at various angles for simple 2d polygons.
Any solutions are much appreciated!
Edit:
Thanks for the answers, I got it working once I got the center points correct. You guys are awesome!
To get a bounding box with a certain angle, rotate the polygon the other way round by that angle. Then you can use the min/max x/y coordinates to get a simple bounding box and rotate that by the angle to get your final result.
From your comment it seems you have problems with getting the center point of the polygon. The center of a polygon should be the average of the coordinate sums of each point. So for points P1,...,PN, calculate:
xsum = p1.x + ... + pn.x;
ysum = p1.y + ... + pn.y;
xcenter = xsum / n;
ycenter = ysum / n;
To make this complete, I also add some formulas for the rotation involved. To rotate a point (x,y) around a center point (cx, cy), do the following:
// Translate center to (0,0)
xt = x - cx;
yt = y - cy;
// Rotate by angle alpha (make sure to convert alpha to radians if needed)
xr = xt * cos(alpha) - yt * sin(alpha);
yr = xt * sin(alpha) + yt * cos(alpha);
// Translate back to (cx, cy)
result.x = xr + cx;
result.y = yr + cx;
To get the smallest rectangle you should get the right angle. This can acomplished by an algorithm used in collision detection: oriented bounding boxes.
The basic steps:
Get all vertices cordinates
Build a covariance matrix
Find the eigenvalues
Project all the vertices in the eigenvalue space
Find max and min in every eigenvalue space.
For more information just google OBB "colision detection"
Ps: If you just project all vertices and find maximum and minimum you're making AABB (axis aligned bounding box). Its easier and requires less computational effort, but doesn't guarantee the minimum box.
I'm interpreting your question to mean "For a given 2D polygon, how do you calculate the position of a bounding rectangle for which the angle of orientation is predetermined?"
And I would do it by rotating the polygon against the angle of orientation, then use a simple search for its maximum and minimum points in the two cardinal directions using whatever search algorithm is appropriate for the structure the points of the polygon are stored in. (Simply put, you need to find the highest and lowest X values, and highest and lowest Y values.)
Then the minima and maxima define your rectangle.
You can do the same thing without rotating the polygon first, but your search for minimum and maximum points has to be more sophisticated.
To get a rectangle with minimal area enclosing a polygon, you can use a rotating calipers algorithm.
The key insight is that (unlike in your sample image, so I assume you don't actually require minimal area?), any such minimal rectangle is collinear with at least one edge of (the convex hull of) the polygon.
Here is a python implementation for the answer by #schnaader.
Given a pointset with coordinates x and y and the degree of the rectangle to bound those points, the function returns a point set with the four corners (and a repetition of the first corner).
def BoundingRectangleAnglePoints(x,y, alphadeg):
#convert to radians and reverse direction
alpha = np.radians(alphadeg)
#calculate center
cx = np.mean(x)
cy = np.mean(y)
#Translate center to (0,0)
xt = x - cx
yt = y - cy
#Rotate by angle alpha (make sure to convert alpha to radians if needed)
xr = xt * np.cos(alpha) - yt * np.sin(alpha)
yr = xt * np.sin(alpha) + yt * np.cos(alpha)
#Find the min and max in rotated space
minx_r = np.min(xr)
miny_r = np.min(yr)
maxx_r = np.max(xr)
maxy_r = np.max(yr)
#Set up the minimum and maximum points of the bounding rectangle
xbound_r = np.asarray([minx_r, minx_r, maxx_r, maxx_r,minx_r])
ybound_r = np.asarray([miny_r, maxy_r, maxy_r, miny_r,miny_r])
#Rotate and Translate back to (cx, cy)
xbound = (xbound_r * np.cos(-alpha) - ybound_r * np.sin(-alpha))+cx
ybound = (xbound_r * np.sin(-alpha) + ybound_r * np.cos(-alpha))+cy
return xbound, ybound
Related
I have an array of diamonds as shown in the image and I know the position of every diamond and the distance from the origin of the diamond to any vertex (They are all the same distance from the center). I am also given a point. Given that information what is the most efficient method to find which diamond the point is in.
I know that I can just check the distance of the point from the position of every diamond but that seems way too cpu intensive as I have to do this multiple times.
Also, this shouldn't matter, but I am using C# and Unity 3D to do this.
If your diamonds form a regular pattern as in your picture, then just perform coordinate transformation to rotate the whole thing 45 degrees CW or CCW with (0, 0) as the origin. After that the problem becomes trivial: locating a point in a regular orthogonal grid.
Diamonds border line have equations
x + y = a0 + u * Size
y - x = b0 + v * Size
where a0, b0 are coordinates of the some vertex of base diamond (that has cell coordinates 0, 0), u and v are cell coordinates, Size is edge length. So to find what diamond point (px, py) belongs to, you can calculate
u = Floor((px + py - a0) / Size))
v = Floor((py - px - b0) / Size))
I have some damaged line segments in a binary image and I need to fix them (make them straight and at their original thick). In order to do that I have to find the middle points of the segment, so when I check the neighborhood to find the thickness of the lines I'll be able to find where the pixel stops being 1 and becomes 0.
Assuming your damaged line segments are straight, you can use regionprops in MATLAB to find the center of each bounding box. Because if a segment is straight, its is always the diagonal line of the bounding box, thus the center of the box is also the center of the semgent.
Let's call the points A and B to reduce ambiguity, A(Xa, Ya) and B(Xb, Yb)
Let C be the middle point.
C(Xc, Yc)
Xc = (Xa + Xb) / 2
Yc = (Ya + Yb) / 2
We have four interesting numbers, two for the X coordinates and two for the Y coordinates.
Xmin = floor(Xc)
Xmax = ceil(Xc)
Ymin = floor(Yc)
Ymax = ceil(Yc)
The X coordinate of your middle point is either Xmin or Xmax, the Y coordinate of your middle point is either Ymin or Ymax.
So we have four potential points: (Xmin, Ymin), (Xmin, Ymax), (Xmax, Ymin), (Xmax, Ymax).
So, finally, we must decide which point is nearest to C.
Distance from P(Xp, Yp) to C(Xc, Yc) is:
sqrt(sqr(Xp - Xc) + sqr(Yp - Yc))
Calculate the four distance from the four points to C, choose the minimum and that will be the best possible middle point.
Suppose
A = [xa ya];
B = [xb yb];
then
C = round( mean([A;B]) );
Matlab's round rounds numbers towards their nearest integer, so this minimizes the (city-block) distance from the analytical center (mean([A;B])) to the nearest pixel.
If you want to keep sub-pixel precision (which is actually advisable for most calculations until an explicit map from a result to pixel indices is required), just drop the round and use only the mean part.
I'm trying to figure out if I have points that make for example a square:
* *
* *
and let's say I know the center of this square.
I want a formula that will make it for eample twice its size but from the center
* *
* *
* *
* *
Therefore the new shape is twice as large and from the center of the polygon. It has to work for any shape not just squares.
I'm looking more for the theory behind it more than the implementation.
If you know the center point cp and a point v in the polygon you would like to scale by scale, then:
v2 = v - cp; // get a vector to v relative to the centerpoint
v2_scaled = v2 * scale; // scale the cp-relative-vector
v1_scaled = v2_scaled + cp; // translate the scaled vector back
This translate-scale-translate pattern can be performed on vectors of any dimension.
If you want the shape twice as large, scale the distance of the coordinates to be sqrt(2) times further from the center.
In other words, let's say your point is at (x, y) and the center is (xcent, ycent). Your new point should be at
(xcent + sqrt(2)*(x - xcent), ycent + sqrt(2)*(y - ycent))
This will scale the distances from the new 'origin', (xcent, ycent) in such a way that the area doubles. (Because sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) == 2).
I'm not sure there's a clean way to do this for all types of objects. For relatively simple ones, you should be able to find the "center" as the average of all the X and Y values of the individual points. To double the size, you find the length and angle of a vector from the center to the point. Double the length of the vector, and retain the same angle to get the new point.
Edit: of course, "twice the size" is open to several interpretations (e.g., doubling the perimeter vs. doubling the area) These would change the multiplier used above, but the basic algorithm would remain essentially the same.
To do what you want you need to perform three operations: translate the square so that its centroid coincides with the origin of the coordinate system, scale the resulting square, translate it back.
I am going to develop a 2-d ball game where two balls (circles) collide. Now I have the problem with determining the colliding point (in fact, determining whether they are colliding in x-axis/y-axis). I have an idea that when the difference between the y coordinate of 2 balls is greater than the x coordinate difference then they collide in their y axis, otherwise, they collide in their x axis. Is my idea correct? I implemented this thing in my games. Normally it works well, but sometimes, it fails. Can anyone tell me whether my idea is right? If not, then why, and is any better way?
By collision in the x axis, I mean the circle's 1st, 4th, 5th, or 8th octant, y axis means the circle's 2nd, 3rd, 6th, or 7th octant.
Thanks in advance!
Collision between circles is easy. Imagine there are two circles:
C1 with center (x1,y1) and radius r1;
C2 with center (x2,y2) and radius r2.
Imagine there is a line running between those two center points. The distance from the center points to the edge of either circle is, by definition, equal to their respective radii. So:
if the edges of the circles touch, the distance between the centers is r1+r2;
any greater distance and the circles don't touch or collide; and
any less and then do collide.
So you can detect collision if:
(x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 <= (r1+r2)^2
meaning the distance between the center points is less than the sum of the radii.
The same principle can be applied to detecting collisions between spheres in three dimensions.
Edit: if you want to calculate the point of collision, some basic trigonometry can do that. You have a triangle:
(x1,y1)
|\
| \
| \ sqrt((x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2) = r1+r2
|y2-y1| | \
| \
| X \
(x1,y2) +------+ (x2,y2)
|x2-x1|
The expressions |x2-x1| and |y2-y1| are absolute values. So for the angle X:
|y2 - y1|
sin X = -------
r1 + r2
|x2 - x1|
cos X = -------
r1 + r2
|y2 - y1|
tan X = -------
|x2 - x1|
Once you have the angle you can calculate the point of intersection by applying them to a new triangle:
+
|\
| \
b | \ r2
| \
| X \
+-----+
a
where:
a
cos X = --
r2
so
a = r2 cos X
From the previous formulae:
|x2 - x1|
a = r2 -------
r1 + r2
Once you have a and b you can calculate the collision point in terms of (x2,y2) offset by (a,b) as appropriate. You don't even need to calculate any sines, cosines or inverse sines or cosines for this. Or any square roots for that matter. So it's fast.
But if you don't need an exact angle or point of collision and just want the octant you can optimize this further by understanding something about tangents, which is:
0 <= tan X <= 1 for 0 <= X <= 45 degrees;
tan X >= 1 for 45 <= X <= 90
0 >= tan X >= -1 for 0 >= X => -45;
tan X <= -1 for -45 >= X => -90; and
tan X = tan (X+180) = tan (X-180).
Those four degree ranges correspond to four octants of the cirlce. The other four are offset by 180 degrees. As demonstrated above, the tangent can be calculated simply as:
|y2 - y1|
tan X = -------
|x2 - x1|
Lose the absolute values and this ratio will tell you which of the four octants the collision is in (by the above tangent ranges). To work out the exact octant just compare x1 and x2 to determine which is leftmost.
The octant of the collision on the other single is offset (octant 1 on C1 means octant 5 on C2, 2 and 6, 3 and 7, 4 and 8, etc).
As cletus says, you want to use the sum of the radii of the two balls. You want to compute the total distance between the centers of the balls, as follows:
Ball 1: center: p1=(x1,y1) radius: r1
Ball 2: center: p2=(x2,y2) radius: r2
collision distance: R= r1 + r2
actual distance: r12= sqrt( (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 )
A collision will happen whenever (r12 < R). As Artelius says, they shouldn't actually collide on the x/y axes, they collide at a particular angle. Except, you don't actually want that angle; you want the collision vector. This is the difference between the centers of the two circles when they collide:
collision vector: d12= (x2-x1,y2-y1) = (dx,dy)
actual distance: r12= sqrt( dx*dx + dy*dy )
Note that you have already computed dx and dy above when figuring the actual distance, so you might as well keep track of them for purposes like this. You can use this collision vector for determining the new velocity of the balls -- you're going to end up scaling the collision vector by some factors, and adding that to the old velocities... but, to get back to the actual collision point:
collision point: pcollision= ( (x1*r2+x2*r1)/(r1+r2), (y1*r2+y2*r1)/(r1+r2) )
To figure out how to find the new velocity of the balls (and in general to make more sense out of the whole situation), you should probably find a high school physics book, or the equivalent. Unfortunately, I don't know of a good web tutorial -- suggestions, anyone?
Oh, and if still want to stick with the x/y axis thing, I think you've got it right with:
if( abs(dx) > abs(dy) ) then { x-axis } else { y-axis }
As for why it might fail, it's hard to tell without more information, but you might have a problem with your balls moving too fast, and passing right by each other in a single timestep. There are ways to fix this problem, but the simplest way is to make sure they don't move too fast...
This site explains the physics, derives the algorithm, and provides code for collisions of 2D balls.
Calculate the octant after this function calculates the following: position of collision point relative to centre of mass of body a; position of collision point relative to centre of mass of body a
/**
This function calulates the velocities after a 2D collision vaf, vbf, waf and wbf from information about the colliding bodies
#param double e coefficient of restitution which depends on the nature of the two colliding materials
#param double ma total mass of body a
#param double mb total mass of body b
#param double Ia inertia for body a.
#param double Ib inertia for body b.
#param vector ra position of collision point relative to centre of mass of body a in absolute coordinates (if this is
known in local body coordinates it must be converted before this is called).
#param vector rb position of collision point relative to centre of mass of body b in absolute coordinates (if this is
known in local body coordinates it must be converted before this is called).
#param vector n normal to collision point, the line along which the impulse acts.
#param vector vai initial velocity of centre of mass on object a
#param vector vbi initial velocity of centre of mass on object b
#param vector wai initial angular velocity of object a
#param vector wbi initial angular velocity of object b
#param vector vaf final velocity of centre of mass on object a
#param vector vbf final velocity of centre of mass on object a
#param vector waf final angular velocity of object a
#param vector wbf final angular velocity of object b
*/
CollisionResponce(double e,double ma,double mb,matrix Ia,matrix Ib,vector ra,vector rb,vector n,
vector vai, vector vbi, vector wai, vector wbi, vector vaf, vector vbf, vector waf, vector wbf) {
double k=1/(ma*ma)+ 2/(ma*mb) +1/(mb*mb) - ra.x*ra.x/(ma*Ia) - rb.x*rb.x/(ma*Ib) - ra.y*ra.y/(ma*Ia)
- ra.y*ra.y/(mb*Ia) - ra.x*ra.x/(mb*Ia) - rb.x*rb.x/(mb*Ib) - rb.y*rb.y/(ma*Ib)
- rb.y*rb.y/(mb*Ib) + ra.y*ra.y*rb.x*rb.x/(Ia*Ib) + ra.x*ra.x*rb.y*rb.y/(Ia*Ib) - 2*ra.x*ra.y*rb.x*rb.y/(Ia*Ib);
double Jx = (e+1)/k * (Vai.x - Vbi.x)( 1/ma - ra.x*ra.x/Ia + 1/mb - rb.x*rb.x/Ib)
- (e+1)/k * (Vai.y - Vbi.y) (ra.x*ra.y / Ia + rb.x*rb.y / Ib);
double Jy = - (e+1)/k * (Vai.x - Vbi.x) (ra.x*ra.y / Ia + rb.x*rb.y / Ib)
+ (e+1)/k * (Vai.y - Vbi.y) ( 1/ma - ra.y*ra.y/Ia + 1/mb - rb.y*rb.y/Ib);
Vaf.x = Vai.x - Jx/Ma;
Vaf.y = Vai.y - Jy/Ma;
Vbf.x = Vbi.x - Jx/Mb;
Vbf.y = Vbi.y - Jy/Mb;
waf.x = wai.x - (Jx*ra.y - Jy*ra.x) /Ia;
waf.y = wai.y - (Jx*ra.y - Jy*ra.x) /Ia;
wbf.x = wbi.x - (Jx*rb.y - Jy*rb.x) /Ib;
wbf.y = wbi.y - (Jx*rb.y - Jy*rb.x) /Ib;
}
I agree with provided answers, they are very good.
I just want to point you a small pitfall: if the speed of balls is high, you can just miss the collision, because circles never intersect for given steps.
The solution is to solve the equation on the movement and to find the correct moment of the collision.
Anyway, if you would implement your solution (comparisons on X and Y axes) you'd get the good old ping pong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong
:)
The point at which they collide is on the line between the midpoints of the two circles, and its distance from either midpoint is the radius of that respective circle.
Given a point (pX, pY) and a circle with a known center (cX,cY) and radius (r), what is the shortest amount of code you can come up with to find the point on the circle closest to (pX, pY) ?
I've got some code kind of working but it involves converting the circle to an equation of the form (x - cX)^2 + (y - cY)^2 = r^2 (where r is radius) and using the equation of the line from point (pX, pY) to (cX, cY) to create a quadratic equation to be solved.
Once I iron out the bugs it'll do, but it seems such an inelegant solution.
where P is the point, C is the center, and R is the radius, in a suitable "mathy" language:
V = (P - C); Answer = C + V / |V| * R;
where |V| is length of V.
OK, OK
double vX = pX - cX;
double vY = pY - cY;
double magV = sqrt(vX*vX + vY*vY);
double aX = cX + vX / magV * R;
double aY = cY + vY / magV * R;
easy to extend to >2 dimensions.
i would make a line from the center to the point, and calc where that graph crosses the circle oO i think not so difficult
Solve it mathematically first, then translate into code. Remember that the shortest line between a point and the edge of a circle will also pass through its center (as stated by #litb).
The shortest distance point lies at the intersection of circumference and line passing through the center and the input point. Also center, input and output points lie on a straight line
let the center be (xc, yc) and shortest point from input (xi, yi) be (x,y) then
sqrt((xc-x)^2 + (yc-y)^2) = r
since center, input and output points lie on a straight line, slope calculated between
any of two of these points should be same.
(yc-yi)/(xc-xi) = (y-yc)/(x-xc)
4.solving equations 2&3 should give us the shortest point.
Trig functions, multiply by r, and add pX or pY as appropriate.
Treat the centre of the circular as your origin, convert the co-ordinates of (pX, pY) to polar co-ordinates, (theta, r') replace r' with the original circle's r and convert back to cartesian co-ordinates (and adjust for the origin).
You asked for the shortest code, so here it is. In four lines it can be done, although there is still a quadratic.
I've considered the point to be outside the circle.
I've not considered what happens if the point is directly above or below the circle center, that is cX=pX.
m=(cY-pY)/(cX-pX); //slope
b=cY-m*cX; //or Py-m*Px. Now you have a line in the form y=m*x+b
X=( (2mcY)*((-2*m*cY)^2-4*(cY^2+cX^2-b^2-2*b*cY-r^2)*(-1-m^2))^(1/2) )/(2*(cY^2+cX^2-b^2-2*bc*Y-r^2));
Y=mX+b;
1] Get an equation for a line connecting the point and the circle center.
2] Move along the line a distance of one radius from the center to find the point on the circle. That is: radius=a^2+b^2 which is: r=((cY-Y)+(cX-X))^(1/2)
3] Solve quadratically. X=quadratic_solver(r=((cY-Y)+(cX-X))^(1/2),X) which if you substitute in Y=m*X+b you get that hell above.
4] X and Y are your results on the circle.
I am rather certain I have made an error somewhere, please leave a comment if anyone finds something. Of course it is degenerate, one answer is furthest from your point and the other is closest.
Easy way to think about it in terms of a picture, and easy to turn into code: Take the vector (pX - cX, pY - cY) from the center to the point. Divide by its length sqrt(blah blah blah), multiply by radius. Add this to (cX, cY).
Here is a simple method I use in unity... for the math kn00bs amongst us.
Its dependent on the transform orientation but it works nicely. I am doing a postion.z = 0 but just fatten the axis of the 2d circle you are not using.
//Find closest point on circle
Vector3 closestPoint = transform.InverseTransformPoint(m_testPosition.position);
closestPoint.z = 0;
closestPoint = closestPoint.normalized * m_radius;
Gizmos.color = Color.yellow;
Gizmos.DrawWireSphere(transform.TransformPoint(closestPoint), 0.01f);