Consider a line from point A (x,y) to B (p,q).
The method CGContextMoveToPoint(context, x, y); moves to the point x,y and the method CGContextAddLineToPoint(context, p, q); will draw the line from point A to B.
My question is, can I find the all points that the line cover?
Actually I need to know the exact point which is x points before the end point B.
Refer this image..
The line above is just for reference. This line may have in any angle. I needed the 5th point which is in the line before the point B.
Thank you
You should not think in terms of pixels. Coordinates are floating point values. The geometric point at (x,y) does not need to be a pixel at all. In fact you should think of pixels as being rectangles in your coordinate system.
This means that "x pixels before the end point" does not really makes sense. If a pixel is a rectangle, "x pixels" is a different quantity if you move horizontally than it is if you move vertically. And if you move in any other direction it's even harder to decide what it means.
Depending on what you are trying to do it may or may not be easy to translate your concepts in pixel terms. It's probably better, however, to do the opposite and stop thinking in terms of pixels and translate all you are currently expressing in pixel terms into non pixel terms.
Also remember that exactly what a pixel is is system dependent and you may or may not, in general, be able to query the system about it (especially if you take into consideration things like retina displays and all resolution independent functionality).
Edit:
I see you edited your question, but "points" is not more precise than "pixels".
However I'll try to give you a workable solution. At least it will be workable once you reformulate your problem in the right terms.
Your question, correctly formulated, should be:
Given two points A and B in a cartesian space and a distance delta, what are the coordinates of a point C such that C is on the line passing through A and B and the length of the segment BC is delta?
Here's a solution to that question:
// Assuming point A has coordinates (x,y) and point B has coordinates (p,q).
// Also assuming the distance from B to C is delta. We want to find the
// coordinates of C.
// I'll rename the coordinates for legibility.
double ax = x;
double ay = y;
double bx = p;
double by = q;
// this is what we want to find
double cx, cy;
// we need to establish a limit to acceptable computational precision
double epsilon = 0.000001;
if ( bx - ax < epsilon && by - ay < epsilon ) {
// the two points are too close to compute a reliable result
// this is an error condition. handle the error here (throw
// an exception or whatever).
} else {
// compute the vector from B to A and its length
double bax = bx - ax;
double bay = by - ay;
double balen = sqrt( pow(bax, 2) + pow(bay, 2) );
// compute the vector from B to C (same direction of the vector from
// B to A but with lenght delta)
double bcx = bax * delta / balen;
double bcy = bay * delta / balen;
// and now add that vector to the vector OB (with O being the origin)
// to find the solution
cx = bx + bcx;
cy = by + bcy;
}
You need to make sure that points A and B are not too close or the computations will be imprecise and the result will be different than you expect. That's what epsilon is supposed to do (you may or may not want to change the value of epsilon).
Ideally a suitable value for epsilon is not related to the smallest number representable in a double but to the level of precision that a double gives you for values in the order of magnitude of the coordinates.
I have hardcoded epsilon, which is a common way to define it's value as you generally know in advance the order of magnitude of your data, but there are also 'adaptive' techniques to compute an epsilon from the actual values of the arguments (the coordinates of A and B and the delta, in this case).
Also note that I have coded for legibility (the compiler should be able to optimize anyway). Feel free to recode if you wish.
It's not so hard, translate your segment into a math line expression, x pixels may be translated into radius of a circe with center in B, make a system to find where they intercept, you get two solutions, take the point that is closer to A.
This is the code you can use
float distanceFromPx2toP3 = 1300.0;
float mag = sqrt(pow((px2.x - px1.x),2) + pow((px2.y - px1.y),2));
float P3x = px2.x + distanceFromPx2toP3 * (px2.x - px1.x) / mag;
float P3y = px2.y + distanceFromPx2toP3 * (px2.y - px1.y) / mag;
CGPoint P3 = CGPointMake(P3x, P3y);
Either you can follow this link also it will give you the detail description -
How to find a third point using two other points and their angle.
You can find out number of points whichever you want to find.
Related
I need to be able to find x, y coordinates at any length down an Archimedean spiral arm, given a specific distance between each loop of the arm.
I have researched previous questions on Stackoverflow, and across the Internet, and I have found three methods, which are each different, and each plot me a spiral. (I call them the first, second and third method, here.)
The first method, does plot equidistant points, with the pointdist variable = 1, but as this is increased, there is also an aberration of point distances (supposed to be equidistant) near the center of the spiral.
The third method and second method, do not correctly plot equidistant points near the center of the spiral. (See graphs below)
The third method, though, allows me to input any length down the arm and obtain x, y coordinates.
The first and second methods plot equidistant points by a process where they additively sum a variable, each cycle of a loop to plot the equidistant points. Because of how this value is built up instead of calculated from scratch using only the distance along the spiral arm variable, I can't use these two methods to find coordinates at any arbitrary length along the arm [Proofreading this, I just thought, perhaps if I initialize the length to calculate one point each time. However, all three methods have problems even with equidistant points.]
Here is output from the third method:
Here is the code of the "third method". This method uses what an answer to another sprial-related question on Stackoverflow (Placing points equidistantly along an Archimedean spiral) calls the "Clackson scroll formula", which is said to be possibly inaccurate in some ranges.
double thetamax = 10 * Math.PI;
double b = armbandwidth / (2 * Math.PI);
// "armbandwidth” value influences distance between the spiral arms, usually kept between 1 and 20
AddPoint(0,0); // Mark the origin of the spiral
// “pointdist” is the length between points to plot along the spiral, I use 0.1 to 2+
// but it doesn't reveal spiral shape with increasing values
for (double s = pointdist; s < spirallength; s += pointdist)
{
double thetai = Math.Sqrt(2 * s / b);
double xx = b * thetai * Math.Cos(thetai);
double yy = b * thetai * Math.Sin(thetai);
AddPoint(xx, yy);
}
I need to both:
Use a method that does not have aberrations in the equidistance of points along the spiral arm, given equally spaced values of lengths down the spiral arms.
Use a method that allows me to specify the width between the spiral arms (in terms of the same units used for the length along spiral arm between the points, as well).
In case it helps, and to be clear about what I've tried, here are the code and output from the other methods I've found and tested (here called "second method" and "first method") for calculating the coordinates of equidistant points along an Archimedean spiral:
Here is output from the second method (note the uneven distanced points near center):
Here is the code for the second method:
AddPoint(0,0); // Mark the origin of the spiral
double arclength = 0.8; // This value (kept between 0.1 and 20 or so) sets the distance between points to calculate coordinates for along the spiral curve
double r = arclength;
double b = armbandwidth / (2 * Math.PI); // "armbandwidth" value influences distance between the spiral arms, usually kept between 3.5 to 10
double phi = r / b;
double xx = r * Math.Cos(phi);
double yy = r * Math.Sin(phi);
AddPoint(xx, yy);
while( r <= spirallength ) // spirallength determines roughly how many iterations of points to draw
{
phi += arclength / r;
r = b * phi;
xx = r * Math.Cos(phi);
yy = r * Math.Sin(phi);
AddPoint(xx, yy);
}
Because the variable phi is additively increased each iteration, I can't pass in any length down the spiral arm to find coordinates for. (Maybe if I initialized the whole method only to a single arclength each time. - In any case, the points near center are not evenly spaced.)
Here is output from the first method (Equidistant points throughout with pointdist = 1):
Here is the code of the first method:
double separation = 4; // Value influences distance between the spiral arms, usually kept 3.5 to 10+
double angle = 0;
double r;
AddPoint(0,0); // Mark the origin of the spiral
for (double i=0; i <= spirallength; i+=pointdist) // spirallength determines pointdist spaced points to plot
{
r = Math.Sqrt(i+1);
angle += Math.Asin(1/r);
double xx = Math.Cos(angle) * r*separation;
double yy = Math.Sin(angle) * r*separation;
AddPoint(xx, yy);
}
However, when "pointdist" is increased above 1, there are aberrations in equidistance between points near the center of the spiral, even by this method. Here is the output of a graph using the "first method" and pointdist = 9:
Can anyone help me calculate x, y coordinates for any length down the spiral arm from center, for an Archimedes spiral defined by a specified width between loops of the arm?
(It should be able to have equidistant points, accurate even near the center, and be able to take a width between loops of the arm in units the same scale as those used for the distance to a point along the arm passed to the coordinates equation.)
Much appreciated!
I believe this last piece of code is the best (most simple and straightforward) approach:
constant angle variation
For a given angle
calculate the radius
convert Polar coordinates to Cartesian.
However, I understand the Archimedean spiral is defined by the formula: r = a + b * angle (where a=0 to simplify, and b controls the distance between loops.
In short, the position of particle is proportional to the angle θ as time elapses.
So what's up with that? That's not linear at all!
r = Math.Sqrt(i+1);
angle += Math.Asin(1/r);
Here's a simple way to make it.
It's not a running code. But I believe it's very easy to understand.
So just understand the logic and then code it with your own variables:
for (some incrementing t)
{
radius = t/100; //Start at radius = 0. When t = 100, radius=1.
angle = t*2*Pi/200; //It takes 200 points to make a full 360 (2Pi) turn
//Now converting from polar coordinates (r,angle) to (x,y):
x = cos(angle) * r;
y = sin(angle) * r;
AddPoint(x, y);
}
This code generates the following image:
This generates the right trajectory. However, as noticed, this does not produce equidistant points, because each angle increment is multiplied by the radius. So I suggest you to find a correction function and apply it to t. Like so:
function correction(i)
{
// I actually don't know the exact relationship between t and i
t = 1/i
// But I think it converges to t=1/i for very small increments
return t
}
for (some incrementing i)
{
t = correction(i)
...
}
I'm trying to figure out the most efficient/fast way to add a large number of convex quads (four given x,y points) into an array/list and then to check against those quads if a point is within or on the border of those quads.
I originally tried using ray casting but thought that it was a little overkill since I know that all my polygons will be quads and that they are also all convex.
currently, I am splitting each quad into two triangles that share an edge and then checking if the point is on or in each of those two triangles using their areas.
for example
Triangle ABC and test point P.
if (areaPAB + areaPAC + areaPBC == areaABC) { return true; }
This seems like it may run a little slow since I need to calculate the area of 4 different triangles to run the check and if the first triangle of the quad returns false, I have to get 4 more areas. (I include a bit of an epsilon in the check to make up for floating point errors)
I'm hoping that there is an even faster way that might involve a single check of a point against a quad rather than splitting it into two triangles.
I've attempted to reduce the number of checks by putting the polygon's into an array[,]. When adding a polygon, it checks the minimum and maximum x and y values and then using those, places the same poly into the proper array positions. When checking a point against the available polygons, it retrieves the proper list from the array of lists.
I've been searching through similar questions and I think what I'm using now may be the fastest way to figure out if a point is in a triangle, but I'm hoping that there's a better method to test against a quad that is always convex. Every polygon test I've looked up seems to be testing against a polygon that has many sides or is an irregular shape.
Thanks for taking the time to read my long winded question to what's prolly a simple problem.
I believe that fastest methods are:
1: Find mutual orientation of all vector pairs (DirectedEdge-CheckedPoint) through cross product signs. If all four signs are the same, then point is inside
Addition: for every edge
EV[i] = V[i+1] - V[i], where V[] - vertices in order
PV[i] = P - V[i]
Cross[i] = CrossProduct(EV[i], PV[i]) = EV[i].X * PV[i].Y - EV[i].Y * PV[i].X
Cross[i] value is positive, if point P lies in left semi-plane relatively to i-th edge (V[i] - V[i+1]), and negative otherwise. If all the Cross[] values are positive, then point p is inside the quad, vertices are in counter-clockwise order. f all the Cross[] values are negative, then point p is inside the quad, vertices are in clockwise order. If values have different signs, then point is outside the quad.
If quad set is the same for many point queries, then dmuir suggests to precalculate uniform line equation for every edge. Uniform line equation is a * x + b * y + c = 0. (a, b) is normal vector to edge. This equation has important property: sign of expression
(a * P.x + b * Y + c) determines semi-plane, where point P lies (as for crossproducts)
2: Split quad to 2 triangles and use vector method for each: express CheckedPoint vector in terms of basis vectors.
P = a*V1+b*V2
point is inside when a,b>=0 and their sum <=1
Both methods require about 10-15 additions, 6-10 multiplications and 2-7 comparisons (I don't consider floating point error compensation)
If you could afford to store, with each quad, the equation of each of its edges then you could save a little time over MBo's answer.
For example if you have an inward pointing normal vector N for each edge of the quad, and a constant d (which is N.p for one of the vertcies p on the edge) then a point x is in the quad if and only if N.x >= d for each edge. So thats 2 multiplications, one addition and one comparison per edge, and you'll need to perform up to 4 tests per point.This technique works for any convex polygon.
I am trying to calculate the forces that will act on circular objects in the event of a collision. Unfortunately, my mechanics is slightly rusty so i'm having a bit of trouble.
I have an agent class with members
vector position // (x,y)
vector velocity // (x,y)
vector forward // (x,y)
float radius // radius of the agent (all circles)
float mass
So if we have A,B:Agent, and in the next time step the velocity is going to change the position. If a collision is going to occur I want to work out the force that will act on the objects.
I know Line1 = (B.position-A.position) is needed to work out the angle of the resultant force but how to calculate it is baffling me when I have to take into account current velocity of the vehicle along with the angle of collision.
arctan(L1.y,L1.x) is am angle for the force (direction can be determined)
sin/cos are height/width of the components
Also I know to calculate the rotated axis I need to use
x = cos(T)*vel.x + sin(T)*vel.y
y = cos(T)*vel.y + sin(T)*vel.x
This is where my brain can't cope anymore.. Any help would be appreciated.
As I say, the aim is to work out the vector force applied to the objects as I have already taken into account basic physics.
Added a little psudocode to show where I was starting to go with it..
A,B:Agent
Agent {
vector position, velocity, front;
float radius,mass;
}
vector dist = B.position - A.position;
float distMag = dist.magnitude();
if (distMag < A.radius + B.radius) { // collision
float theta = arctan(dist.y,dist.x);
flost sine = sin(theta);
float cosine = cos(theta);
vector newAxis = new vector;
newAxis.x = cosine * dist .x + sine * dist .y;
newAxis.y = cosine * dist .y - sine * dist .x;
// Converted velocities
vector[] vTemp = {
new vector(), new vector() };
vTemp[0].x = cosine * agent.velocity.x + sine * agent.velocity.y;
vTemp[0].y = cosine * agent.velocity.y - sine * agent.velocity.x;
vTemp[1].x = cosine * current.velocity.x + sine * current.velocity.y;
vTemp[1].y = cosine * current.velocity.y - sine * current.velocity.x;
Here's to hoping there's a curious maths geek on stack..
Let us assume, without loss of generality, that we are in the second object's reference frame before the collision.
Conservation of momentum:
m1*vx1 = m1*vx1' + m2*vx2'
m1*vy1 = m1*vy1' + m2*vy2'
Solving for vx1', vy1':
vx1' = vx1 - (m2/m1)*vx2'
vy1' = vy1 - (m2/m1)*vy2'
Secretly, I will remember the fact that vx1'*vx1' + vy1'*vy1' = v1'*v1'.
Conservation of energy (one of the things elastic collisions give us is that angle of incidence is angle of reflection):
m1*v1*v1 = m1*v1'*v1' + m2*v2'+v2'
Solving for v1' squared:
v1'*v1' = v1*v1 - (m2/m1)v2'*v2'
Combine to eliminate v1':
(1-m2/m1)*v2'*v2' = 2*(vx2'*vx1+vy2'*vy1)
Now, if you've ever seen a stationary poolball hit, you know that it flies off in the direction of the contact normal (this is the same as your theta).
v2x' = v2'cos(theta)
v2y' = v2'sin(theta)
Therefore:
v2' = 2/(1-m2/m1)*(vx1*sin(theta)+vy1*cos(theta))
Now you can solve for v1' (either use v1'=sqrt(v1*v1-(m2/m1)*v2'*v2') or solve the whole thing in terms of the input variables).
Let's call phi = arctan(vy1/vx1). The angle of incidence relative to the tangent line to the circle at the point of intersection is 90-phi-theta (pi/2-phi-theta if you prefer). Add that again for the reflection, then convert back to an angle relative to the horizontal. Let's call the angle of incidence psi = 180-phi-2*theta (pi-phi-2*theta). Or,
psi = (180 or pi) - (arctan(vy1/vx1))-2*(arctan(dy/dx))
So:
vx1' = v1'sin(psi)
vy1' = v1'cos(psi)
Consider: if these circles are supposed to be solid 3D spheres, then use a mass proportional to radius-cubed for each one (note that the proportionality constant cancels out). If they are supposed to be disklike, use mass proportional to radius-squared. If they are rings, just use radius.
Next point to consider: Since the computer updates at discrete time events, you actually have overlapping objects. You should back out the objects so that they don't overlap before computing the new location of each object. For extra credit, figure out the time that they should have intersected, then move them in the new direction for that amount of time. Note that this time is just the overlap / old velocity. The reason that this is important is that you might imagine a collision that is computed that causes the objects to still overlap (causing them to collide again).
Next point to consider: to translate the original problem into this problem, just subtract object 2's velocity from object 1 (component-wise). After the computation, remember to add it back.
Final point to consider: I probably made an algebra error somewhere along the line. You should seriously consider checking my work.
If you understand objective c very well, then just read the last 2 sentences. The rest of this just summarizes the last 2 sentances:
So I have two sprites, the lower arm and the upper arm. I set the anchor points to ccp(0.5f,0.0f) So lets say that the following dashes represent the lower arm, the anchorpoint is the dash in parenthesis: (-)------ . So the object is rotating around this point (the CGPoint at the moment is ccp(100,55)).
What I need is, if the lower arm is rotating around the dash in parenthesis: (-)-----o the circle represents the point I want. I'm basically connecting the two arms and trying to make the movement look nice... Both arms are 17 pixels long (which means that if the lower arm is pointing straight up, the CGPoint of the circle is ccp(100,72), and if the arm was pointing straight down, the circle would be ccp(100,38).
What equation would I use so that I could set the position of the upper arm equal to the position of the lower arm's rotating CGPoint, represented as a circle in the 2nd paragraph of this question. Like... _,/ the _ represents the lower arm, the comma represents the point I want, and the / represent the upper arm.
So lower and upper arm = 17 pixels long, anchor point for both is (0.5f,0.0f), how do I find the point opposite of the anchor point for the lower arm.
x = 100 + 17 * cos(θ)
y = 55 + 17 * sin(θ)
You need to find what the angle of rotation is. I'm not that familiar with objective c, but if you're using a rotation function there's most likely an angle component somewhere you can reference.
From there you can use trigonometry to find the components of your x and y change.
For x it will be: (anchor x) + (length of arm) * cosine(angle of rotation)
And for y it will be: (anchor y) + (length of arm) * sine(angle of rotation)
Also, make sure you know whether the angle is in radians or degrees, you might have to convert based on the sine/cosine functions.
I've been working on this problem for awhile now, and haven't been able to come up with a good solution thusfar.
The problem: I have an ordered list of three (or more) 2D points, and I want to stroke through these with a cubic Bezier curve, in such a way that it "looks good." The "looks good" part is pretty simple: I just want the wedge at the second point smoothed out (so, for example, the curve doesn't double-back on itself). So given three points, where should one place the two control points that would surround the second point in the triplet when drawing the curve.
My solution so far is as follows, but is incomplete. The idea might also help communicate the look that I'm after.
Given three points, (x1,y1), (x2,y2), (x3,y3). Take the circle inscribed by each triplet of points (if they are collinear, we just draw a straight line between them and move on). Take the line tangent to this circle at point (x2,y2) -- we will place the control points that surround (x2,y2) on this tangent line.
It's the last part that I'm stuck on. The problem I'm having is finding a way to place the two control points on this tangent line -- I have a good enough heuristic on how far from (x2,y2) on this line they should be, but of course, there are two points on this line that are that distance away. If we compute the one in the "wrong" direction, the curve loops around on itself.
To find the center of the circle described by the three points (if any of the points have the same x value, simply reorder the points in the calculation below):
double ma = (point2.y - point1.y) / (point2.x - point1.x);
double mb = (point3.y - point2.y) / (point3.x - point2.x);
CGPoint c; // Center of a circle passing through all three points.
c.x = (((ma * mb * (point1.y - point3.y)) + (mb * (point1.x + point2.x)) - (ma * (point2.x + point3.x))) / (2 * (mb - ma)));
c.y = (((-1 / ma) * (c.x - ((point1.x + point2.x) / 2))) + ((point1.y + point2.y) / 2));
Then, to find the points on the tangent line, in this case, finding the control point for the curve going from point2 to point3:
double d = ...; // distance we want the point. Based on the distance between
// point2 and point3.
// mc: Slope of the line perpendicular to the line between
// point2 and c.
double mc = - (c.x - point2.x) / (c.y - point2.y);
CGPoint tp; // point on the tangent line
double c = point2.y - mc * point2.x; // c == y intercept
tp.x = ???; // can't figure this out, the question is whether it should be
// less than point2.x, or greater than?
tp.y = mc * tp.x + c;
// then, compute a point cp that is distance d from point2 going in the direction
// of tp.
It sounds like you might need to figure out the direction the curve is going, in order to set the tangent points so that it won't double back on itself. From what I understand, it would be simply finding out the direction from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2), and then travelling on the tangent line your heuristic distance in the direction closest to the (x1, y1) -> (x2, y2) direction, and plopping the tangent point there.
If you're really confident that you have a good way of choosing how far along the tangent line your points should be, and you only need to decide which side to put each one on, then I would suggest that you look once again at that circle to which the line is tangent. You've got z1,z2,z3 in that order on the circle; imagine going around the circle from z2 towards z1, but go along the tangent line instead; that's which side the control point "before z2" should be; the control point "after z2" should be on the other side.
Note that this guarantees always to put the two control points on opposite sides of z2, which is important. (Also: you probably want them to be the same distance from z2, because otherwise you'll get a discontinuity at z2 in, er, the second derivative of your curve, which is likely to look a bit suboptimal.) I bet there will still be pathological cases.
If you don't mind a fair bit of code complexity, there's a sophisticated and very effective algorithm for exactly your problem (and more) in Don Knuth's METAFONT program (whose main purpose is drawing fonts). The algorithm is due to John Hobby. You can find a detailed explanation, and working code, in METAFONT or, perhaps better, the closely related METAPOST (which generates PostScript output instead of huge bitmaps).
Pointing you at it is a bit tricky, though, because METAFONT and METAPOST are "literate programs", which means that their source code and documentation consist of a kind of hybrid of Pascal code (for METAFONT) or C code (for METAPOST) and TeX markup. There are programs that will turn this into a beautifully typeset document, but so far as I know no one has put the result on the web anywhere. So here's a link to the source code, which you may or may not find entirely incomprehensible: http://foundry.supelec.fr/gf/project/metapost/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2Fsource%2Ftexk%2Fweb2c%2Fmplibdir%2Fmp.w&view=markup -- in which you should search for "Choosing control points".
(The beautifully-typeset document for METAFONT is available as a properly bound book under the title "METAFONT: the program". But it costs actual money, and the code is in Pascal.)