I have a server and a client.
I have 40 opengl cubes. There state is described by 3d vector for position and 3x3 rotation matrix(or a quaternion).
How can I send intermediate packets and predict the object state on the client between those packets(extrapolation)?
for object position I can use a linear predictor on velocity.
How to predict quaternion states?
The easiest thing, parallel to what you're doing with linear velocity, is to use a linear predictor on angular velocity.
If you have two quaternions, q_0 and q_t, representing global orientations that are t seconds apart, you can compute the finite difference between the two quaternions and use that to find an angular velocity that can be used for extrapolation.
Make sure that the inner-product between q_0 and q_t is non-negative. If it's negative, negate all the components of one of the quaternions. This makes sure that we're not trying to go the long way around. If your bodies are rotating really fast relative to your sampling, this is a problem and you'll need a more complicated model that accounts for the previous angular velocity and makes assumptions about maximum possible acceleration. We'll assume that's not the case.
Then we compute the relative difference quaternion. dq = q_t * q_0' (where q_0' is the quaternion rotational inverse/conjugate). If you have the luxury of having fixed-sized steps, you can stop here and predict then next orientation t seconds into the future: q_2t = dq*d_t.
If we can' step forward by integer multiples of t, we compute the angle of rotation from dq. Quaternions and angular velocities are both variations on "axis-angle" representations of changes in orientation. If you rotate by Θ around unit-length axis [x,y,z], then the quaternion representation of that is q = [cos(Θ/2), sin(Θ/2)x, sin(Θ/2)y, sin(Θ/2)z] (using the quaternion convention where the w component comes first). If you rotate by Θ/t around axis [x,y,z], then the angular velocity is v = [Θx,Θy,Θz]/t. So v = Θ[q.x,q.y,q.z]/(t||[q.x,q.y,q.z]||). We can compute the angle two ways: Θ = 2acos(q.w) = 2asin(||[q.x,q.y,q.z]||). These will always be the same because of step 1. Numerics make it nicer to use sine since we need to find m = ||[q.x,q.y,q.z]|| anyway for the next step.
If m is large enough, then we just find the angular velocity:
v = 2asin(m)[dq.x,dq.y,dq.z]/(m*t)
However, if m's not large enough, we'll face numeric issues trying to divide by near-zero. So programmers will use the Taylor expansion of the sinc() function around zero, which happens to be very accurate in this case. Remember that m = sin(Θ/2). With m<1e-4, we can accurately compute asin(m)/m = 6/(6-m*m). Then you just need to multiply the result by 2*[dq.x,dq.y,dq.z]/t and you have your angular velocity. Phew.
Extrapolating is then a matter of multiplying your angular velocity times the time that has passed. Then you go backwards, converting the angular change to a quaternion and multiplying it onto q_t.
It seems like there must be an easier way...
Related
I'm trying to use a VectorNav VN100 IMU to map a path through an underground tunnel (GPS denied environment) and am wondering what is the best approach to take to do this.
I get lots of data points from the VN100 these include: orientation/pose (Euler angles, quaternions), and acceleration and gyroscope values in three dimensions. The acceleration and gyro values are given in raw and filtered formats where filtered outputs have been filtered using an onboard Kalman filter.
In addition to IMU measurements I also measure GPS-RTK coordinates in three dimensions at the start and end-points of the tunnel.
How should I approach this mapping problem? I'm quite new to this area and do not know how to extract position from the acceleration and orientation data. I know acceleration can be integrated once to give velocity and that in turn can be integrated again to get position but how do I combine this data together with orientation data (quaternions) to get the path?
In robotics, Mapping means representing the environment using perception sensor (like 2D,3D laser or Cameras).
Once you got the map, it can be used by robot to know its location(Localization). Map is also used for find a path between locations to move from one place to another place(Path planning).
In your case you need a perception sensor to get the better location estimation. With only IMU you can track the position using Extended Kalman filter(EKF) but it drifts quickly.
Robot Operating System has EKF implementation you can refer it.
Ok so I came across a solution that gets me somewhat closer to my goal of finding the path travelled underground, although it is by no means the final solution I'm posting my algorithm here in the hopes that it helps someone else.
My method is as follows:
Rotate the Acceleration vector A = [Ax, Ay, Az] output by the VectorNav VN100 into the North, East, Down frame by multiplying by the quaternion VectorNav output Q = [q0, q1, q2, q3]. How to multiply a vector by a quaternion is outlined in this other post.
Basically you take the acceleration vector and add a fourth component on to the end of it to act as the scalar term, then multiply by the quaternion and it's conjugate (N.B. the scalar terms in both matrices should be in the same position, in this case the scalar quaternion term is the first term, so therefore a zero scalar term should be added on to the start of the acceleration vector) e.g. A = [0,Ax,Ay,Az]. Then perform the following multiplication:
A_ned = Q A Q*
where Q* is the complex conjugate of the quaternion (i, j, and k terms are negated).
Integrate the rotated acceleration vector to get the velocity vector: V_ned
Integrate the Velocity vector to get the position in north, east, down: R_ned
There is substantial drift in the velocity and position due to sensor bias which causes drift. This can be corrected for somewhat if we know the start and end velocity and start and end positions. In this case the start and end velocities were zero so I used this to correct the drift in the velocity vector.
Uncorrected Velocity
Corrected Velocity
My final comparison between IMU position vs GPS is shown here (read: there's still a long way to go).
GPS-RTK data vs VectorNav IMU data
Now I just need to come up with a sensor fusion algorithm to try to improve the position estimation...
so I am making a simple simulation of different planets with individual velocity flying around space and orbiting each other.
I plan to simulate their pull on each other by considering each planet as projecting their own "gravity vector field." Each time step I'm going to add the vectors outputted from each planets individual vector field equation (V = -xj + (-yj) or some notation like it) except the one being effected in the calculation, and use the effected planets position as input to the equations.
However this would inaccurate, and does not consider the gravitational pull as continuous and constant. Bow do I calculate the movement of my planets if each is continuously effecting the others?
Thanks!
In addition to what Blender writes about using Newton's equations, you need to consider how you will be integrating over your "acceleration field" (as you call it in the comment to his answer).
The easiest way is to use Euler's Method. The problem with that is it rapidly diverges, but it has the advantage of being easy to code and to be reasonably fast.
If you are looking for better accuracy, and are willing to sacrifice some performance, one of the Runge-Kutta methods (probably RK4) would ordinarily be a good choice. I'll caution you that if your "acceleration field" is dynamic (i.e. it changes over time ... perhaps as a result of planets moving in their orbits) RK4 will be a challenge.
Update (Based on Comment / Question Below):
If you want to calculate the force vector Fi(tn) at some time step tn applied to a specific object i, then you need to compute the force contributed by all of the other objects within your simulation using the equation Blender references. That is for each object, i, you figure out how all of the other objects pull (apply force) and those vectors when summed will be the aggregate force vector applied to i. Algorithmically this looks something like:
for each object i
Fi(tn) = 0
for each object j ≠ i
Fi(tn) = Fi(tn) + G * mi * mj / |pi(tn)-pj(tn)|2
Where pi(tn) and pj(tn) are the positions of objects i and j at time tn respectively and the | | is the standard Euclidean (l2) normal ... i.e. the Euclidean distance between the two objects. Also, G is the gravitational constant.
Euler's Method breaks the simulation into discrete time slices. It looks at the current state and in the case of your example, considers all of the forces applied in aggregate to all of the objects within your simulation and then applies those forces as a constant over the period of the time slice. When using
ai(tn) = Fi(tn)/mi
(ai(tn) = acceleration vector at time tn applied to object i, Fi(tn) is the force vector applied to object i at time tn, and mi is the mass of object i), the force vector (and therefore the acceleration vector) is held constant for the duration of the time slice. In your case, if you really have another method of computing the acceleration, you won't need to compute the force, and can instead directly compute the acceleration. In either event, with the acceleration being held as constant, the position at time tn+1, p(tn+1) and velocity at time tn+1, v(tn+1), of the object will be given by:
pi(tn+1) = 0.5*ai(tn)*(tn+1-tn)2 + vi(tn)*(tn+1-tn)+pi(tn)
vi(tn+1) = ai(tn+1)*(tn+1-tn) + vi(tn)
The RK4 method fits the driver of your system to a 2nd degree polynomial which better approximates its behavior. The details are at the wikipedia site I referenced above, and there are a number of other resources you should be able to locate on the web. The basic idea is that instead of picking a single force value for a particular timeslice, you compute four force vectors at specific times and then fit the force vector to the 2nd degree polynomial. That's fine if your field of force vectors doesn't change between time slices. If you're using gravity to derive the vector field, and the objects which are the gravitational sources move, then you need to compute their positions at each of the four sub-intervals in order compute the force vectors. It can be done, but your performance is going to be quite a bit poorer than using Euler's method. On the plus side, you get more accurate motion of the objects relative to each other. So, it's a challenge in the sense that it's computationally expensive, and it's a bit of a pain to figure out where all the objects are supposed to be for your four samples during the time slice of your iteration.
There is no such thing as "continuous" when dealing with computers, so you'll have to approximate continuity with very small intervals of time.
That being said, why are you using a vector field? What's wrong with Newton?
And the sum of the forces on an object is that above equation. Equate the two and solve for a
So you'll just have to loop over all the objects one by one and find the acceleration on it.
Does anyone know of a tutorial that would deal with gravitational pull of two objects? Eg. a satellite being drawn to the moon (and possibly sling shot past it).
I have a small Java game that I am working on and I would like to implement his feature in it.
I have the formula for gravitational attraction between two bodies, but when I try to use it in my game, nothing happens?
There are two object on the screen, one of which will always be stationary while the other one moves in a straight line at a constant speed until it comes within the detection range of the stationary object. At which point it should be drawn to the stationary object.
First I calculate the distance between the two objects, and depending on their mass and this distance, I update the x and y coordinates.
But like I said, nothing happens. Am I not implementing the formula correctly?
I have included some code to show what I have so far.
This is the instance when the particle collides with the gates detection range, and should start being pulled towards it
for (int i = 0; i < particle.length; i++)
{
// **************************************************************************************************
// GATE COLLISION
// **************************************************************************************************
// Getting the instance when a Particle collides with a Gate
if (getDistanceBetweenObjects(gate.getX(), particle[i].getX(), gate.getY(), particle[i].getY()) <=
sumOfRadii(particle[i].getRadius(), barrier.getRadius()))
{
particle[i].calcGravPull(particle[i].getMass(), barrier.getMass(),
getDistanceBetweenObjects(gate.getX(), particle[i].getX(), gate.getY(), particle[i].getY()));
}
And the method in my Particle class to do the movement
// Calculate the gravitational pull between objects
public void calcGravPull(int mass1, int mass2, double distBetweenObjects)
{
double gravityPull;
gravityPull = GRAV_CONSTANT * ((mass1 * mass2) / (distBetweenObjects * distBetweenObjects));
x += gravityPull;
y += gravityPull;
}
Your formula has problems. You're calculating the gravitational force, and then applying it as if it were an acceleration. Acceleration is force divided by mass, so you need to divide the force by the small object's mass. Therefore, GRAV_CONSTANT * ((mass1) / (distBetweenObjects * distBetweenObjects)) is the formula for acceleration of mass2.
Then you're using it as if it were a positional adjustment, not a velocity adjustment (which an acceleration is). Keep track of the velocity of the moving mass, use that to adjust its position, and use the acceleration to change that velocity.
Finally, you're using acceleration as a scalar when it's really a vector. Calculate the angle from the moving mass to the stationary mass, and if you're representing it as angle from the positive x-axis multiply the x acceleration by the cosine of the angle, and the y acceleration by the sine of the angle.
That will give you a correct representation of gravity.
If it does nothing, check the coordinates to see what is happening. Make sure the stationary mass is large enough to have an effect. Gravity is a very weak force, and you'll have no significant effect with much smaller than a planetary mass.
Also, make sure you're using the correct gravitational constant for the units you're using. The constant you find in the books is for the MKS system - meters, kilograms, and seconds. If you're using kilometers as units of length, you need to multiply the constant by a million, or alternately multiply the length by a thousand before plugging it into the formula.
Your algorithm is correct. Probably the gravitational pull you compute is too small to be seen. I'd remove GRAV_CONSTANT and try again.
BTW if you can gain a bit of speed moving the result of getDistanceBetweenObjects() in a temporary variable.
My question is fairly simple. I have two tetrahedra, each with a current position, a linear speed in space, an angular velocity and a center of mass (center of rotation, actually).
Having this data, I am trying to find a (fast) algorithm which would precisely determine (1) whether they would collide at some point in time, and if it is the case, (2) after how much time they collided and (3) the point of collision.
Most people would solve this by doing triangle-triangle collision detection, but this would waste a few CPU cycles on redundant operations such as checking the same edge of one tetrahedron against the same edge of the other tetrahedron upon checking up different triangles. This only means I'll optimize things a bit. Nothing to worry about.
The problem is that I am not aware of any public CCD (continuous collision detection) triangle-triangle algorithm which takes self-rotation in account.
Therefore, I need an algorithm which would be inputted the following data:
vertex data for three triangles
position and center of rotation/mass
linear velocity and angular velocity
And would output the following:
Whether there is a collision
After how much time the collision occurred
In which point in space the collision occurred
Thanks in advance for your help.
The commonly used discrete collision detection would check the triangles of each shape for collision, over successive discrete points in time. While straightforward to compute, it could miss a fast moving object hitting another one, due to the collision happening between discrete points in time tested.
Continuous collision detection would first compute the volumes traced by each triangle over an infinity of time. For a triangle moving at constant speed and without rotation, this volume could look like a triangular prism. CCD would then check for collision between the volumes, and finally trace back if and at what time the triangles actually shared the same space.
When angular velocity is introduced, the volume traced by each triangle no longer looks like a prism. It might look more like the shape of a screw, like a strand of DNA, or some other non-trivial shapes you might get by rotating a triangle around some arbitrary axis while dragging it linearly. Computing the shape of such volume is no easy feat.
One approach might first compute the sphere that contains an entire tetrahedron when it is rotating at the given angular velocity vector, if it was not moving linearly. You can compute a rotation circle for each vertex, and derive the sphere from that. Given a sphere, we can now approximate the extruded CCD volume as a cylinder with the radius of the sphere and progressing along the linear velocity vector. Finding collisions of such cylinders gets us a first approximation for an area to search for collisions in.
A second, complementary approach might attempt to approximate the actual volume traced by each triangle by breaking it down into small, almost-prismatic sub-volumes. It would take the triangle positions at two increments of time, and add surfaces generated by tracing the triangle vertices at those moments. It's an approximation because it connects a straight line rather than an actual curve. For the approximation to avoid gross errors, the duration between each successive moments needs to be short enough such that the triangle only completes a small fraction of a rotation. The duration can be derived from the angular velocity.
The second approach creates many more polygons! You can use the first approach to limit the search volume, and then use the second to get higher precision.
If you're solving this for a game engine, you might find the precision of above sufficient (I would still shudder at the computational cost). If, rather, you're writing a CAD program or working on your thesis, you might find it less than satisfying. In the latter case, you might want to refine the second approach, perhaps by a better geometric description of the volume occupied by a turning, moving triangle -- when limited to a small turn angle.
I have spent quite a lot of time wondering about geometry problems like this one, and it seems like accurate solutions, despite their simple statements, are way too complicated to be practical, even for analogous 2D cases.
But intuitively I see that such solutions do exist when you consider linear translation velocities and linear angular velocities. Don't think you'll find the answer on the web or in any book because what we're talking about here are special, yet complex, cases. An iterative solution is probably what you want anyway -- the rest of the world is satisfied with those, so why shouldn't you be?
If you were trying to collide non-rotating tetrahedra, I'd suggest a taking the Minkowski sum and performing a ray check, but that won't work with rotation.
The best I can come up with is to perform swept-sphere collision using their bounding spheres to give you a range of times to check using bisection or what-have-you.
Here's an outline of a closed-form mathematical approach. Each element of this will be easy to express individually, and the final combination of these would be a closed form expression if one could ever write it out:
1) The equation of motion for each point of the tetrahedra is fairly simple in it's own coordinate system. The motion of the center of mass (CM) will just move smoothly along a straight line and the corner points will rotate around an axis through the CM, assumed to be the z-axis here, so the equation for each corner point (parameterized by time, t) is p = vt + x + r(sin(wt+s)i + cos(wt + s)j ), where v is the vector velocity of the center of mass; r is the radius of the projection onto the x-y plane; i, j, and k are the x, y and z unit vectors; and x and s account for the starting position and phase of rotation at t=0.
2) Note that each object has it's own coordinate system to easily represent the motion, but to compare them you'll need to rotate each into a common coordinate system, which may as well be the coordinate system of the screen. (Note though that the different coordinate systems are fixed in space and not traveling with the tetrahedra.) So determine the rotation matrices and apply them to each trajectory (i.e. the points and CM of each of the tetrahedra).
3) Now you have an equation for each trajectory all within the same coordinate system and you need to find the times of the intersections. This can be found by testing whether any of the line segments from the points to the CM of a tetrahedron intersects the any of the triangles of another. This also has a closed-form expression, as can be found here.
Layering these steps will make for terribly ugly equations, but it wouldn't be hard to solve them computationally (although with the rotation of the tetrahedra you need to be sure not to get stuck in a local minimum). Another option might be to plug it into something like Mathematica to do the cranking for you. (Not all problems have easy answers.)
Sorry I'm not a math boff and have no idea what the correct terminology is. Hope my poor terms don't hide my meaning too much.
Pick some arbitrary timestep.
Compute the bounds of each shape in two dimensions perpendicular to the axis it is moving on for the timestep.
For a timestep:
If the shaft of those bounds for any two objects intersect, half timestep and start recurse in.
A kind of binary search of increasingly fine precision to discover the point at which a finite intersection occurs.
Your problem can be cast into a linear programming problem and solved exactly.
First, suppose (p0,p1,p2,p3) are the vertexes at time t0, and (q0,q1,q2,q3) are the vertexes at time t1 for the first tetrahedron, then in 4d space-time, they fill the following 4d closed volume
V = { (r,t) | (r,t) = a0 (p0,t0) + … + a3 (p3,t0) + b0 (q0,t1) + … + b3 (q3,t1) }
Here the a0...a3 and b0…b3 parameters are in the interval [0,1] and sum to 1:
a0+a1+a2+a3+b0+b1+b2+b3=1
The second tetrahedron is similarly a convex polygon (add a ‘ to everything above to define V’ the 4d volume for that moving tetrahedron.
Now the intersection of two convex polygon is a convex polygon. The first time this happens would satisfy the following linear programming problem:
If (p0,p1,p2,p3) moves to (q0,q1,q2,q3)
and (p0’,p1’,p2’,p3’) moves to (q0’,q1’,q2’,q3’)
then the first time of intersection happens at points/times (r,t):
Minimize t0*(a0+a1+a2+a3)+t1*(b0+b1+b2+b3) subject to
0 <= ak <=1, 0<=bk <=1, 0 <= ak’ <=1, 0<=bk’ <=1, k=0..4
a0*(p0,t0) + … + a3*(p3,t0) + b0*(q0,t1) + … + b3*(q3,t1)
= a0’*(p0’,t0) + … + a3’*(p3’,t0) + b0’*(q0’,t1) + … + b3’*(q3’,t1)
The last is actually 4 equations, one for each dimension of (r,t).
This is a total of 20 linear constraints of the 16 values ak,bk,ak', and bk'.
If there is a solution, then
(r,t)= a0*(p0,t0) + … + a3*(p3,t0) + b0*(q0,t1) + … + b3*(q3,t1)
Is a point of first intersection. Otherwise they do not intersect.
Thought about this in the past but lost interest... The best way to go about solving it would be to abstract out one object.
Make a coordinate system where the first tetrahedron is the center (barycentric coords or a skewed system with one point as the origin) and abstract out the rotation by making the other tetrahedron rotate around the center. This should give you parametric equations if you make the rotation times time.
Add the movement of the center of mass towards the first and its spin and you have a set of equations for movement relative to the first (distance).
Solve for t where the distance equals zero.
Obviously with this method the more effects you add (like wind resistance) the messier the equations get buts its still probably the simplest (almost every other collision technique uses this method of abstraction). The biggest problem is if you add any effects that have feedback with no analytical solution the whole equation becomes unsolvable.
Note: If you go the route of of a skewed system watch out for pitfalls with distance. You must be in the right octant! This method favors vectors and quaternions though, while the barycentric coords favors matrices. So pick whichever your system uses most effectively.
I've tried the typical physics equations for this but none of them really work because the equations deal with constant acceleration and mine will need to change to work correctly. Basically I have a car that can be going at a large range of speeds and needs to slow down and stop over a given distance and time as it reaches the end of its path.
So, I have:
V0, or the current speed
Vf, or the speed I want to reach (typically 0)
t, or the amount of time I want to take to reach the end of my path
d, or the distance I want to go as I change from V0 to Vf
I want to calculate
a, or the acceleration needed to go from V0 to Vf
The reason this becomes a programming-specific question is because a needs to be recalculated every single timestep as the car keeps stopping. So, V0 constantly is changed to be V0 from last timestep plus the a that was calculated last timestep. So essentially it will start stopping slowly then will eventually stop more abruptly, sort of like a car in real life.
EDITS:
All right, thanks for the great responses. A lot of what I needed was just some help thinking about this. Let me be more specific now that I've got some more ideas from you all:
I have a car c that is 64 pixels from its destination, so d=64. It is driving at 2 pixels per timestep, where a timestep is 1/60 of a second. I want to find the acceleration a that will bring it to a speed of 0.2 pixels per timestep by the time it has traveled d.
d = 64 //distance
V0 = 2 //initial velocity (in ppt)
Vf = 0.2 //final velocity (in ppt)
Also because this happens in a game loop, a variable delta is passed through to each action, which is the multiple of 1/60s that the last timestep took. In other words, if it took 1/60s, then delta is 1.0, if it took 1/30s, then delta is 0.5. Before acceleration is actually applied, it is multiplied by this delta value. Similarly, before the car moves again its velocity is multiplied by the delta value. This is pretty standard stuff, but it might be what is causing problems with my calculations.
Linear acceleration a for a distance d going from a starting speed Vi to a final speed Vf:
a = (Vf*Vf - Vi*Vi)/(2 * d)
EDIT:
After your edit, let me try and gauge what you need...
If you take this formula and insert your numbers, you get a constant acceleration of -0,0309375. Now, let's keep calling this result 'a'.
What you need between timestamps (frames?) is not actually the acceleration, but new location of the vehicle, right? So you use the following formula:
Sd = Vi * t + 0.5 * t * t * a
where Sd is the current distance from the start position at current frame/moment/sum_of_deltas, Vi is the starting speed, and t is the time since the start.
With this, your decceleration is constant, but even if it is linear, your speed will accomodate to your constraints.
If you want a non-linear decceleration, you could find some non-linear interpolation method, and interpolate not acceleration, but simply position between two points.
location = non_linear_function(time);
The four constraints you give are one too many for a linear system (one with constant acceleration), where any three of the variables would suffice to compute the acceleration and thereby determine the fourth variables. However, the system is way under-specified for a completely general nonlinear system -- there may be uncountably infinite ways to change acceleration over time while satisfying all the constraints as given. Can you perhaps specify better along what kind of curve acceleration should change over time?
Using 0 index to mean "at the start", 1 to mean "at the end", and D for Delta to mean "variation", given a linearly changing acceleration
a(t) = a0 + t * (a1-a0)/Dt
where a0 and a1 are the two parameters we want to compute to satisfy all the various constraints, I compute (if there's been no misstep, as I did it all by hand):
DV = Dt * (a0+a1)/2
Ds = Dt * (V0 + ((a1-a0)/6 + a0/2) * Dt)
Given DV, Dt and Ds are all given, this leaves 2 linear equations in the unknowns a0 and a1 so you can solve for these (but I'm leaving things in this form to make it easier to double check on my derivations!!!).
If you're applying the proper formulas at every step to compute changes in space and velocity, it should make no difference whether you compute a0 and a1 once and for all or recompute them at every step based on the remaining Dt, Ds and DV.
If you're trying to simulate a time-dependent acceleration in your equations, it just means that you should assume that. You have to integrate F = ma along with the acceleration equations, that's all. If acceleration isn't constant, you just have to solve a system of equations instead of just one.
So now it's really three vector equations that you have to integrate simultaneously: one for each component of displacement, velocity, and acceleration, or nine equations in total. The force as a function of time will be an input for your problem.
If you're assuming 1D motion you're down to three simultaneous equations. The ones for velocity and displacement are both pretty easy.
In real life, a car's stopping ability depends on the pressure on the brake pedal, any engine braking that's going on, surface conditions, and such: also, there's that "grab" at the end when the car really stops. Modeling that is complicated, and you're unlikely to find good answers on a programming website. Find some automotive engineers.
Aside from that, I don't know what you're asking for. Are you trying to determine a braking schedule? As in there's a certain amount of deceleration while coasting, and then applying the brake? In real driving, the time is not usually considered in these maneuvers, but rather the distance.
As far as I can tell, your problem is that you aren't asking for anything specific, which suggests that you really haven't figured out what you actually want. If you'd provide a sample use for this, we could probably help you. As it is, you've provided the bare bones of a problem that is either overdetermined or way underconstrained, and there's really nothing we can do with that.
if you need to go from 10m/s to 0m/s in 1m with linear acceleration you need 2 equations.
first find the time (t) it takes to stop.
v0 = initial velocity
vf = final velocity
x0 = initial displacement
xf = final displacement
a = constant linear acceleration
(xf-x0)=.5*(v0-vf)*t
t=2*(xf-x0)/(v0-vf)
t=2*(1m-0m)/(10m/s-0m/s)
t=.2seconds
next to calculate the linear acceleration between x0 & xf
(xf-x0)=(v0-vf)*t+.5*a*t^2
(1m-0m)=(10m/s-0m/s)*(.2s)+.5*a*((.2s)^2)
1m=(10m/s)*(.2s)+.5*a*(.04s^2)
1m=2m+a*(.02s^2)
-1m=a*(.02s^2)
a=-1m/(.02s^2)
a=-50m/s^2
in terms of gravity (g's)
a=(-50m/s^2)/(9.8m/s^2)
a=5.1g over the .2 seconds from 0m to 10m
Problem is either overconstrained or underconstrained (a is not constant? is there a maximum a?) or ambiguous.
Simplest formula would be a=(Vf-V0)/t
Edit: if time is not constrained, and distance s is constrained, and acceleration is constant, then the relevant formulae are s = (Vf+V0)/2 * t, t=(Vf-V0)/a which simplifies to a = (Vf2 - V02) / (2s).