I have historical aircraft trajectory data with points varying from 1 second - 1 minute separation. Often these points present sharp turns. I'm looking for suggestions of best methods of resampling the data to generate smooth paths (e.g. point every n seconds) that more realistically represent the path followed. It would be useful to be able to parameterize the function with certain performance characteristics (e.g. rate of change of direction).
I'm aware of algorithms like the Kalman filter, Bezier curve fitting, splines etc. for data smoothing. But what algorithms would you suggest exploring as a starting point for generating smooth turns?
Schneider's Algorithm is an algorithm that approximately fits curves through a series of points.
The resulting curves have a drastically reduced point-count and it's error-tolerance is configurable, so you can adjust it as much as you need to.
In general:
Lower error-tolerance: More points, more accurate, less execution
Higher error-tolerance: Less points, less accurate, faster execution
Some useful links:
A live Javascript example, and it's implementation here.
Python Example
C++ implementation
If the resulting curve must pass exactly through your points, you need an interpolation algorithm instead of an approximation algorithm, but keep in mind that those do not reduce point-count.
A really good type of interpolating spline is the Centripetal Catmull-Rom Spline.
Related
I'm currently writing an SPH Solver using CUDA on https://github.com/Mathiasb17/sph_opengl.
I have pretty good results and performances but in my mind they still seem pretty weird for some reason :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DdHN8qApns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgn0iWeDoc
In some implementations, i saw that a particle does not contribute to its own internal forces (which would be 0 anyways due to the formulas), but it does contribute to its own density.
My simulations work "pretty fine" (i don't like "pretty fine", i want it perfect) and in my implementation a particle does not contribute to its own density.
Besides when i change the code so it does contribute to its own density, the resulting simulation becomes way too unstable (particles explode).
I asked this to a lecturer in physics based animation, he told me a particle should not contribute to its density, but did not give me specific details about this assertion.
Any idea of how it should be ?
As long as you calculate the density with the summation formula instead of the continuity equation, yes you need to do it with self-contribution.
Here is why:
SPH is an interpolation scheme, which allows you to interpolate a specific value in any position in space over a particle cloud. Any position means you are not restricted to evaluate it on a particle, but anywhere in space. If you do so, obviously you need to consider all particles within the influence radius. From this point of view, it is easy to see that interpolating a quantity at a particle's position does not influence its contribution.
For other quantities like forces, where the derivative of some quantity is approximated, you don't need to apply self-contribution (that would lead to the evaluation of 0/0).
To discover the source of the instability:
check if the kernel is normalised
are the stiffness of the liquid and the time step size compatible (for the weakly compressible case)?
I have a basic question relating to NURBs Spline and tension splines like v-splines.
Does increasing the weight of a give control point or all control points have any effect on the continuity of the B-Spline ? For example in the case of a C2 continuous weighted B-Spline (NURBS) with uniform knotvector ? And also in the case of tension splines like v-Spline where tension values act similar to weights also with uniform knot vector.
Theoretically it does not decrease the continuity. However, it practical terms there is often a change in the radius of curvature. In the limit, when the weight is infinite, you will get parametric continuity but not geometric continuity (C but not G).
In this example, when the weight gets high enough, while if you zoom in enough you will still have a continuous curve, it's not going to be suitable for many applications that require smoothness. So, it depends on what you're using continuity for.
I have a 3D set of points. These points will undergo a series of tiny perturbations (all points will be perturbed at once). Example: if I have 100 points in a box, each point may be moved up to, but no more than 0.2% of the box width in each iteration of my program.
After each perturbation operation, I want to know the new distance to each point's nearest neighbor.
This needs to use a very fast data structure; I'm optimizing this for speed. It's a somewhat tricky problem because I'm modifying all points at once. Approximate NN algorithms are not suitable for this problem.
I feel like the answer is somewhere between kd-trees and Voronoi tessellations, but I am not an expert on data structures, so I am baffled about what to do. I sure this is a very hard problem that would require a lot of research to reach a truly optimal solution, but even something fairly optimal will work for me.
Thanks
You can try a quadkey or monster curve. It reduce the dimension and fills the plane. Microsoft bing maps quadkey is a good start to learn.
I have a sequence of gps values each containing: timestamp, latitude, longitude, n_sats, gps_speed, gps_direction, ... (some subset of NMEA data). I'm not sure of what quality the direction and speed values are. Further, I cannot expect the sequence to be evenly spaced w.r.t. the timestamp. I want to get a smooth trajectory at an even time step.
I've read the Kalman Filter is the tool of choice for such tasks. Is this indeed the case?
I've found some implementations of the Kalman Filter for Python:
http://www.scipy.org/Cookbook/KalmanFiltering
http://ascratchpad.blogspot.de/2010/03/kalman-filter-in-python.html
These however appear to assume regularly spaced data, i.e. iterations.
What would it take to integrate support of irregularly spaced observations?
One thing I could imagine is to repeat/adapt the prediction step to a time-based model. Can you recommend such a model for this application? Would it need to take into account the NMEA speed values?
Having looked all over for an understandable resource on Kalman filters, I'd highly recommend this one: https://github.com/rlabbe/Kalman-and-Bayesian-Filters-in-Python
To your particular question regarding irregularly spaced observations: Look at Chapter 8 in the reference above, and under the heading "Nonstationary Processes". To summarize, you'll need to use a different state transition function and process noise covariance for each iteration. Those are the only things you'll need to change at each iteration, since they're the only components dependent on delta t.
You could also try kinematic interpolation to see if the results fit to what you expect.
Here's a Python implementation of one of these algorithms: https://gist.github.com/talespaiva/128980e3608f9bc5083b
I'm considering exploiting ray coherence in my software per-pixel realtime raycaster.
AFAICT, using a uniform grid, if I assign ray coherence to patches of say 4x4 pixels (where at present I have one raycast per pixel), given 16 parallel rays with different start (and end) point, how does this work out to a coherent scene? What I foresee is:
There is a distance within which the ray march would be exactly the same for adjacent/similar rays. Within that distance, I am saving on processing. (How do I know what that distance is?)
I will end up with a slightly to seriously incorrect image, due to the fact that some rays didn't diverge at the right times.
Given that my rays are cast from a single point rather than a plane, I guess I will need some sort of splitting function according to distance traversed, such that the set of all rays forms a tree as it move outward. My concern here is that finer detail will be lost when closer to the viewer.
I guess I'm just not grasping how this is meant to be used.
If done correctly, ray coherence shouldn't affect the final image. Because the rays are very close together, there's a good change that they'll all take similar paths when traversing the acceleration structure (kd-tree, aabb tree, etc). You have to go down each branch that any of the rays could hit, but hopefully this doesn't increase the number of branches much, and it saves on memory access.
The other advantage is that you can use SIMD (e.g. SSE) to accelerate some of your tests, both in the acceleration structure and against the triangles.