I'm needing to implement a Minkowski sum function that can return the Minkowski sum of either 2 circles, 2 convex polygons or a circle and a convex polygon. I found this thread that explained how to do this for convex polygons, but I'm not sure how to do this for a circle and polygon. Also, how would I even represent the answer?! I'd like the algorithm to run in O(n) time but beggars can't be choosers.
Circle is trivial -- just add the center points, and add the radii. Circle + ConvexPoly is nearly as simple: move each segment perpendicularly outward by the circle radius, and connect adjacent segments with circular arcs centered at the original poly vertices. Translate the whole by the circle center point.
As for how you represent the answer: Well, it depends on what you want to do with it. You could convert it to a NURBS if you just want to draw it with a vector drawing library. You could approximate the circular arcs with polylines if you just want a polygonal approximation. Or you might store it as is -- "this polygon, expanded by such-and-such a radius". That would be the best choice for things like raycasting, for instance. Or as a compromise, you could connect adjacent segments linearly instead of with circular arcs, and store it as the union of the (new) convex polygon and a list of circles at the vertices.
Oh, about ConvexPoly + ConvexPoly. That's the trickiest one, but still straightforward. The basic idea is that you take the list of segment vectors for each polygon (starting from some particular extremal point, like the point on each poly with the lowest X coordinate), then merge the two lists together, keeping it sorted by angle. Sum the two points you started with, then apply each vector from the merged vector list to produce the other points.
camera.rotate.y pans left or right in a predictable manner.
camera.rotate.x looks up or down predictably when camera.rotate.y is at 180 degrees.
but when I change the value of camera.rotate.y to some new value, and then I change the value of camera.rotate.x, the horizon rotates.
I've looked for an algorithm to adjust for horizon rotation after camera.rotate.x is changed, but haven't found it.
In three.js, an object's orientation can be specified by its Euler rotation vector object.rotation. The three components of the rotation vector represent the rotation in radians around the object's internal x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis respectively.
The order in which the rotations are performed is specified by object.rotation.order. The default order is "XYZ" -- rotation around the x-axis occurs first, then the y-axis, then the z-axis.
Rotations are performed with respect to the object's internal coordinate system -- not the world coordinate system. This is important. So, for example, after the x-rotation occurs, the object's y- and z- axes will generally no longer be aligned with the world axes. Rotations specified in this way are not unique.
So, for example, if in code you specify,
camera.rotation.y = y_radians; // Y first
camera.rotation.x = x_radians; // X second
camera.rotation.z = 0;
the rotations are applied in the object's rotation.order, not in the order you specified them.
In your case, you may find it more intuitive to set rotation.order to "YXZ", which is equivalent to "heading, pitch, and roll".
For more information about Euler angles, see the Wikipedia article. Three.js follows the Tait–Bryan convention, as explained in the article.
three.js r.61
I've been looking for the same info for few days now, the trick is: use regular rotateX to look up/down, but use rotateOnWorldAxis(new THREE.Vector3(0.0, 1.0, 0.0), angle) for horiz turn (https://discourse.threejs.org/t/vertical-camera-rotation/15334).
I have 3 sprites that all have the same angle, so I'm just going to say arm sprite.
Arm sprite's angle, at the moment, is equal to one point1 (60,60 but this does not matter)
to another point2, the point where the player thumb pressed.
During the ccTime function I update everything, the angles and stuff. So whenever the user touches a spot on the screen, the angle is immediately changed and the arm's angle is equal to the vector from point1 to point2.
I don't want the angle change to take .016 seconds to complete (ccTime gets called every 1/60'th of a second). What I want is for the angle to increment/decrement faster/slower depending on how far away the new vector is from the current vector. Basically I want the arm to raise/lower at a certain speed, maybe accelerate a bit, depending on the vector.
I've tried many times to make it work, but I'm not getting anywhere. Please help me, rotation can go from 90 degrees straight up to almost 180 degrees straight down (the angles in cocos2d are changed, however, so I had to add 90 here and there).
If you need anymore information, just leave a comment and I'll give you the info asap.
You should set the new angle as a destinationAngle then on your update loop:
//Instead of checking for equality, you might want to check the angle is close enough, e.g. if they are withing 1 degree of each other e.g.(if (abs(destinationAngle - angle) < 1)
if (angle != destinationAngle)
{
//move towards destination
angle += ((destinationAngle - angle) / 10.0f);
}
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 was asking myself if there are examples online which covers how you can for instance detect shapes in touch gestures.
for example a rectangle or a circle (or more complex a heart .. )
or determine the speed of swiping (over time ( like i'm swiping my iphone against 50mph ))
For very simple gestures (horizontal vs. vertical swipe), calculate the difference in x and y between two touches.
dy = abs(y2 - y1)
dx = abs(x2 - x1)
f = dy/dx
An f close to zero is a horizontal swipe. An f close to 1 is a diagonal swipe. And a very large f is a vertical swipe (keep in mind that dx could be zero, so the above won't yield valid results for all x and y).
If you're interested in speed, pythagoras can help. The length of the distance travelled between two touches is:
l = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy)
If the touches happened at times t1 and t2, the speed is:
tdiff = abs(t2 - t1)
s = l/tdiff
It's up to you to determine which value of s you interpret as fast or slow.
You can extend this approach for more complex figures, e.g. your square shape could be a horizontal/vertical/horizontal/vertical swipe with start/end points where the previous swipe stopped.
For more complex figures, it's probably better to work with an idealized shape. One could consider a polygon shape as the ideal, and check if a range of touches
don't have too high a distance to their closest point on the pologyon's outline, and
all touches follow the same direction along the polygon's outline.
You can refine things further from there.
There does exist other methods for detecting non-simple touches on a touchscreen. Check out the $1 unistroke gesture recognizer at the University of Washington. http://depts.washington.edu/aimgroup/proj/dollar/
It basically works like this:
Resample the recorded path into a fixed number of points that are evenly spaced along the path
Rotating the path so that the first point is directly to the right of the path’s center of mass
Scaling the path (non-uniformly) to a fixed height and width
For each reference path, calculating the average distance for the corresponding points in the input path. The path with the lowest average point distance is the match.
What’s great is that the output of steps 1-3 is a reference path that can be added to the array of known gestures. This makes it extremely easy to give your application gesture support and create your own set of custom gestures, as you see fit.
This has been ported to iOS by Adam Preble, repo on github:
http://github.com/preble/GLGestureRecognizer