I have a point (Lat/Lon) and a heading in degrees (true north) for which this point is traveling along. I have numerous stationary polygons (Points defined in Lat/Lon) which may or may not be convex.
My question is, how do I calculate the closest intersection point, if any, with a polygon. I have seen several confusing posts about Ray Tracing but they seem to all relate to 3D when the Ray and Polygon are not on the same Plane and also the Polygons must be convex.
sounds like you should be able to do a simple 2d line intersection...
However I have worked with Lat/Long before and know that they aren't exactly true to any 2d coordinate system.
I would start with a general "IsPointInPolygon" function, you can find a million of them by googling, and then test it on your poly's to see how well it works. If they are accurate enough, just use that. But it is possible that due to the non-square nature of lat/long coordinates, you may have to do some modifications using Spherical geometry.
In 2D, the calculations are fairly simple...
You could always start by checking to make sure the ray's endpoint is not inside the polygon (since that's the intersection point in that case).
If the endpoint is out of the line, you could do a ray/line segment intersection with each of the boundary features of the polygon, and use the closest found location. That handles convex/concave features, etc.
Compute whether the ray intersects each line segment in the polygon using this technique.
The resulting scaling factor in (my accepted) answer (which I called h) is "How far along the ray is the intersection." You're looking for a value between 0 and 1.
If there are multiple intersection points, that's fine! If you want the "first," use the one with the smallest value of h.
The answer on this page seems to be the most accurate.
Question 1.E GodeGuru
Related
I have a set of 3d points that lie in a plane. Somewhere on the plane, there will be a hole (which is represented by the lack of points), as in this picture:
I am trying to find the contour of this hole. Other solutions out there involve finding convex/concave hulls but those apply to the outer boundaries, rather than an inner one.
Is there an algorithm that does this?
If you know the plane (which you could determine by PCA), you can project all points into this plane and continue with the 2D coordinates. Thus, your problem reduces to finding boundary points in a 2D data set.
Your data looks as if it might be uniformly sampled (independently per axis). Then, a very simple check might be sufficient: Calculate the centroid of the - let's say 30 - nearest neighbors of a point. If the centroid is very far away from the original point, you are very likely on a boundary.
A second approach might be recording the directions in which you have neighbors. I.e. keep something like a bit field for the discretized directions (e.g. angles in 10° steps, which will give you 36 entries). Then, for every neighbor, calculate its direction and mark that direction, including a few of the adjacent directions, as occupied. E.g. if your neighbor is in the direction of 27.4°, you could mark the direction bits 1, 2, and 3 as occupied. This additional surrounding space will influence how fine-grained the result will be. You might also want to make it depend on the distance of the neighbor (i.e. treat the neighbors as circles and find the angular range that is spanned by the circle). Finally, check if all directions are occupied. If not, you are on a boundary.
Alpha shapes can give you both the inner and outer boundaries.
convert to 2D by projecting the points onto your plane
see related QA dealing with this:
C++ plane interpolation from a set of points
find holes in 2D point set
simply apply this related QA:
Finding holes in 2d point sets?
project found holes back to 3D
again see the link in #1
Sorry for almost link only answer but booth links are here on SO/SE and deals exactly with your issue when combined. I was struggling first to flag your question as duplicate and leave this in a comment but this is more readable.
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 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've been scouring the internet for days, but have been unable to find a good answer (or at least one that made sense to me) to what seems like it should be a common question. How does one scale an arbitrary polygon? In particular, concave polygons. I need an algorithm which can handle concave (definitely) and self-intersecting (if possible) polygons. The obvious and simple algorithm I've been using to handle simple convex polygons is calculating the centroid of the polygon, translating that centroid to the origin, scaling all the vertices, and translating the polygon back to its original location.
This approach does not work for many (or maybe all) concave polygons as the centroid often falls outside the polygon, so the scaling operation also results in a translation and I need to be able to scale the polygon "in place" without the final result being translated.
Is anybody aware of a method for scaling concave polygons? Or maybe a way of finding the "visual center" which can be used as a frame of reference for the scaling operation?
Just to clarify, I'm working in 2D space and I would like to scale my polygons using the "visual center" as the frame of reference. So maybe another way to ask the question would be, how do I find the visual center of a concave and/or self-intersecting polygon?
Thanks!
I'm not sure what your problem is.
You're working in an affine space, and you're looking for an affine transformation to scale your polygon ?
If i'm right, just write the transformation matrix:
scaling matrix
homotethy
And transform your polygon with matrix
You can look up for affine transformation matrix.
hope it helps
EDIT
if you want to keep the same "center", you can just do an homotethy of parameter lambda with center G = barycenter of the polygon:
it verifies :
G won't move since it's the center of the homotethy.
It will still verify the relation below, so it will still be the barycenter. (you just multiply the relation by lambda)
in your case G is easy to determinate: G(x,y) : (average of x values of points, average of y values of points)
and it should do what you need
Perhaps Craig is looking for a "polygon offset" algorithm - where each edge in the polygon is offset by a given value. For example, given a clockwise oriented polygon, offsetting edges towards the left will increase the size of the polygon. If this is what Craig is looking for then this has been asked and answered before here - An algorithm for inflating/deflating (offsetting, buffering) polygons.
If you're looking for a ready made (opensource freeware) solution, I've also created a clipping library (Clipper) written in Delphi, C++ and C# which includes a rather simple polygon offsetting function.
The reason why you can't find a good answer is because you are being imprecise with your requirements. First explicitly define what you mean by "in-place". What is being kept constant?
Once you have figured that out, then translate the constant point to the origin, scale the polygon as usual, and translate back.
Starting with a 3D mesh, how would you give a rounded appearance to the edges and corners between the polygons of that mesh?
Without wishing to discourage other approaches, here's how I'm currently approaching the problem:
Given the mesh for a regular polyhedron, I can give the mesh's edges a rounded appearance by scaling each polygon along its plane and connecting the edges using cylinder segments such that each cylinder is tangent to each polygon where it meets that polygon.
Here's an example involving a cube:
Here's the cube after scaling its polygons:
Here's the cube after connecting the polygons' edges using cylinders:
What I'm having trouble with is figuring out how to deal with the corners between polygons, especially in cases where more than three edges meet at each corner. I'd also like an algorithm that works for all closed polyhedra instead of just those that are regular.
I post this as an answer because I can't put images into comments.
Sattle point
Here's an image of two brothers camping:
They placed their simple tents right beside each other in the middle of a steep walley (that's one bad place for tents, but thats not the point), so one end of each tent points upwards. At the point where the four squares meet you have a sattle point. The two edges on top of each tent can be rounded normally as well as the two downward edges. But at the sattle point you have different curvature in both directions and therefore its not possible to use a sphere. This rules out Svante's solution.
Selfintersection
The following image shows some 3D polygons if viewed from the side. Its some sharp thing with a hole drilled into it from the other side. The left image shows it before, the right after rounding.
.
The mass thats get removed from the sharp edge containts the end of the drill hole.
There is someething else to see here. The drill holes sides might be very large polygons (lets say it's not a hole but a slit). Still you only get small radii at the top. you can't just scale your polygons, you have to take into account the neighboring polygon.
Convexity
You say you're only removing mass, this is only true if your geometry is convex. Look at the image you posted. But now assume that the viewer is inside the volume. The radii turn away from you and therefore add mass.
NURBS
I'm not a nurbs specialist my self. But the constraints would look something like this:
The corners of the nurbs patch must be at the same position as the corners of the scaled-down polygons. The normal vectors of the nurb surface at the corners must be equal to the normal of the polygon. This should be sufficent to gurarantee that the nurb edge will be a straight line following the polygon edge. The normals also ensure that no visible edges will result at the border between polygon and nurbs patch.
I'd just do the math myself. nurbs are just polygons. You'll have some unknown coefficients and your constraints. This gives you a system of equations (often linear) that you can solve.
Is there any upper bound on the number of faces, that meet at that corner?
You might you might employ concepts from CAGD, especially Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS) might be of interest for you.
Your current approach - glueing some fixed geometrical primitives might be too inflexible to solve the problem. NURBS require some mathematical work to get used to, but might be more suitable for your needs.
Extrapolating your cylinder-edge approach, the corners should be spheres, resp. sphere segments, that have the same radius as the cylinders meeting there and the centre at the intersection of the cylinders' axes.
Here we have a single C++ header for generating triangulated rounded 3D boxes. The code is in C++ but also easy to transplant to other coding languages. Also it's easy to be modified for other primitives like quads.
https://github.com/nepluno/RoundCornerBox
As #Raymond suggests, I also think that the nepluno repo provides a very good implementation to solve this issue; efficient and simple.
To complete his answer, I just wrote a solution to this issue in JS, based on the BabylonJS 3D engine. This solution can be found here, and can be quite easily replaced by another 3D engine:
https://playground.babylonjs.com/#AY7B23