calculate with vector of incidence a vector of failure - geometry

I try to code the vec of failure for an animation with a ball with a line in 2D.
I have the homogeneoous coordinates of the line, and the coordinates of the ball and the velocity.
When the incidence realtions homo. coordinates of the line and the ball go to near to zero, I want to run a method which let bounce the ball from the border with the same angle of incidence like the same angle of failure.
How is it to compute?
In my opinion I need the normal vec of the line where the ball bounces and have to compute new velocity`s for x,y for the ball but there I´m struggling....
Help would be great.

Let us assume we have given the following:
P1 = (px1, py1) ... line point 1
P2 = (px2, py2) ... line point 2
P1h = (px1, py1, 1) ... homogenous coordinates of line point 1
P2h = (px2, py2, 1) ... homogenous coordinates of line point 2
lh = P1h x P2h ... homogenous coordinates of line (computed with cross product)
v = (vx, vy) ... vector of ball movement
B1 = (bx1, by1) ... ball position 1
B2 = (bx2, by2) = B1 + v ... ball position 2
B1h = (bx1, by1, 1) ... homogenous coordinates of ball position 1
B2h = (bx2, by2, 1) ... homogenous coordinates of ball position 2
Then we can detect, if the ball has crossed the line by comparing the signs of the following scalar products:
ball crossed line <==> sign(B1h*lh) != 0 and sign(B1h*lh) != sign(B2h*lh)
To mirror the movement you can compute the mirror images B1m and B2m of B1 and B2, resp., across the line. Then B2m is the new ball position and vm = B2m - B1m is the new (mirrored) direction of the ball movement.
How to compute the mirror image of a point P across the line l? Let us assume that
P = (px, py) ... point to be mirrored
Ph = (px, py, 1) ... homogenous coordinates of point to be mirrored
Also note that (lh.x, lh.y) is a normal vector of line l. Now follow these steps to compute the mirror image Pm of P across l:
|nl| = sqrt(lh.x^2+lh.y^2) ... length of normal vector
lh0 = lh / |nl| ... "normalized" homogenous line, i.e. HNF (Hesse normal form) of line
d = Ph*lh0 ... signed distance of P to l
lhP0 = lh0 + (0,0,d) ... HNF of line parallel to l running through Pm
mh0 = (lh0.y, -lh0.x, 0) ... HNF of line perpendicular to l (parallel to line
through P and Pm)
md = mh0*Ph ... signed distance of P to mh0
mhP0 = mh0 - (0,0,md) ... HNF of line through P and Pm
Pmh = lhP0 x mhP0 ... homogenous coordinates of mirrored point Pm

Related

Find angle of rotation, inverted y axis, between two points in 2D

Background :
I am implementing an application where I need to do affine transformations on a selected line. Line is represented using 2 points. All the code is done in mouse events.
void mousePressEvent(){
lastPoint = event.point();
}
void mouseMoveEvent(){
currentPoint = event.point();
//Do transformations here.
translate_factor = currentPoint - lastPoint
scale_factor = currentPoint / lastPoint
rotation_angle = f(current_point,last_point) //FIND f
//Apply transformation
lastPoint = currentPoint
}
I have two points, p1 and p2. The X axis increases from left to right. Y axis increases top to bottom. I have a point d around which I want to rotate a set of points p_set .
How do I find the angle of rotation from p1 to p2 about d .
What I am doing is translate p1 , p2 by -d and calculate theta by using atan2f as shown in the following code.
Note that y is inverted : goes from top to bottom.
Here is the code
const auto about = stroke->getMidPoint();
Eigen::Affine2f t1(Eigen::Translation2f(0-about.x(),0-about.y()));
Eigen::Vector3f p1 = t1.matrix()*Eigen::Vector3f(lastPoint.x(),lastPoint.y(),1.0);
Eigen::Vector3f p2 = t1.matrix()*Eigen::Vector3f(currentPoint.x(),currentPoint.y(),1.0);
float theta = atan2f(p2[1]-p1[1],p2[0]-p1[0]);
When I transform using this, I get very weird rotations.
What I want is to find angle as a function of current and last points
It seems to me that you're finding the slope of the vector p2-p1.
If I understood correctly, you want the difference of the slopes of the two vectors p2-d and p1-d, so the rotation angle is something like atan((p2.y-d.y)/(p2.x-d.x)) - atan((p1.y-d.y)/(p1.x-d.x))

Tessellating hexagons over a rectangle

I have an infinite grid of hexagons, defined by a cubic (x y z) coordinate system like so:
I also have a viewport -- a rectangular canvas where I will draw the hexagons.
My issue is this. Because the grid of hexagons is infinite in all directions, I can't feasibly draw all of them at once. Therefore, I need to draw all the hexagons that are in the viewport, and ONLY those hexagons.
This image summarizes what I want to do:
In this image, purple-colored hexagons are those I want to render, while white-colored hexagons are those I don't want to render. The black rectangle is hte viewport -- all the hexagons that intersect with it are to be drawn. How would I find which hexagons to render (IE their xyz coordinates)?
Some other info:
I have a function that can recall a hexagon tile and draw it centered at position(x,y) in the viewport, given its cubic xyz coordinates. Therefore, all I should need is the xyz coords of each rectangle to draw, and I can draw them. This might simplify the problem.
I have formulas to convert from cubic hexagon coordinates to x/y coordinates, and back. Given the above diagram, r/g/b being the axes for the cubic coords with the image above, x and y being the cartesian coordinates, and s being the length of a hexagon's edge...
y = 3/2 * s * b
b = 2/3 * y / s
x = sqrt(3) * s * ( b/2 + r)
x = - sqrt(3) * s * ( b/2 + g )
r = (sqrt(3)/3 * x - y/3 ) / s
g = -(sqrt(3)/3 * x + y/3 ) / s
r + b + g = 0
Let's X0, Y0 are coordinates of top left corner, RectWidth is rectangle width, HexWidth = s * Sqrt(3/2) is hexagon width.
Find center of the closest hexagon r0, g0, b0, HX0, HY0. (Rect corner lies in this hexagon, because hexagons are Voronoy diagram cells). Remember horizontal and vertical shift DX = X0 - HX0, DY = Y0 - HY0
Draw horizontal row of Ceil(RectWidth/HexWidth) hexagons, incrementing r coordinate, decrementing f, and keeping b the same, ROWINC=(1,-1,0).
Note that if DY > HexWidth/2, you need extra top row with initial coordinates shifted up (r0, g0-1, b0+1)
Shift starting point by L=(0, 1, -1) if the DX < 0, or by R=(1, 0, -1) otherwise. Draw another horizontal row with the same ROWINC
Shift row starting point by alternative way (L after R, R after L). Draw horizontal rows until bottom edge is reached.
Check whether extra row is needed in the bottom.
You can think of the rectangular box in terms of constraints on an axis.
In the diagram, the horizontal lines correspond to b and your constraints will be of the form somenumber ≤ b and b ≤ somenumber. For example the rectangle might be in the range 3 ≤ b ≤ 7.
The vertical lines are a little trickier, but they are a “diagonal” that corresponds to r-g. Your constraints will be of the form somenumber ≤ r-g and r-g ≤ somenumber. For example it might be the range -4 ≤ r-g ≤ 5.
Now you have two axes with constraints on them, and you can form a loop. The easiest thing will be to have the outer loop use b:
for (b = 3; b ≤ 7; b++) {
…
}
The inner loop is a little trickier, because that's the diagonal constraint. Since we know r+g+b=0, and we know the value of b from the outer loop, we can rewrite the two-variable constraint on r-g. Express r+g+b=0 as g=0-r-b. Now substitute into r-g and get r-(0-r-b). Simplify r-(0-r-b) to 2*r-b. Instead of -4 ≤ r-g we can say -4 ≤ 2*r-b or -4+b ≤ 2*r or (-4+b)/2 ≤ r. Similarly, we can rearrange r-g ≤ 5 to 2*r-b ≤ 5 to r ≤ (5+b)/2. This gives us our inner loop:
for (b = 3; b ≤ 7; b++) {
for (r = (-4+b)/2; r ≤ (5+b)/2; r++) {
g = 0-b-r;
…
}
}
The last bit is to generalize, replacing the constants 3,7,-4,5 with the actual bounds for your rectangle.

find point where barycentric weights have a specific value

I have triangle: a, b, c. Each vertex has a value: va, vb, vc. In my software the user drags point p around inside and outside of this triangle. I use barycentric coordinates to determine the value vp at p based on va, vb, and vc. So far, so good.
Now I want to limit p so that vp is within range min and max. If a user chooses p where vp is < min or > max, how can I find the point closest to p where vp is equal to min or max, respectively?
Edit: Here is an example where I test each point. Light gray is within min/max. How can I find the equations of the lines that make up the min/max boundary?
a = 200, 180
b = 300, 220
c = 300, 300
va = 1
vb = 1.4
vc = 3.2
min = 0.5
max = 3.5
Edit: FWIW, so far first I get the barycentric coordinates v,w for p using the triangle vertices a, b, c (standard stuff I think, but looks like this). Then to get vp:
u = 1 - w - v
vp = va * u + vb * w + vc * v
That is all fine. My trouble is that I need the line equations for min/max so I can choose a new position for p when vp is out of range. The new position for p is the point closest to p on the min or max line.
Note that p is an XY coordinate and vp is a value for that coordinate determined by the triangle and the values at each vertex. min and max are also values. The two line equations I need will give me XY coordinates for which the values determined by the triangle are min or max.
It doesn't matter if barycentric coordinates are used in the solution.
The trick is to use the ratio of value to cartesian distance to extend each triangle edge until it hits min or max. Easier to see with a pic:
The cyan lines show how the triangle edges are extended, the green Xs are points on the min or max lines. With just 2 of these points we know the slope if the line. The yellow lines show connecting the Xs aligns with the light gray.
The math works like this, first get the value distance between vb and vc:
valueDistBtoC = vc - vb
Then get the cartesian distance from b to c:
cartesianDistBtoC = b.distance(c)
Then get the value distance from b to max:
valueDistBtoMax = max - vb
Now we can cross multiply to get the cartesian distance from b to max:
cartesianDistBtoMax = (valueDistBtoMax * cartesianDistBtoC) / valueDistBtoC
Do the same for min and also for a,b and c,a. The 6 points are enough to restrict the position of p.
Consider your triangle to actually be a 3D triangle, with points (ax,ay,va), (bx,by,vb), and (cx,cy,vc). These three points define a plane, containing all the possible p,vp triplets obtainable through barycentric interpolation.
Now think of your constraints as two other planes, at z>=max and z<=min. Each of these planes intersects your triangle's plane along an infinite line; the infinite beam between them, projected back down onto the xy plane, represents the area of points which satisfy the constraints. Once you have the lines (projected down), you can just find which (if either) is violated by a particular point, and move it onto that constraint (along a vector which is perpendicular to the constraint).
Now I'm not sure about your hexagon, though. That's not the shape I would expect.
Mathematically speaking the problem is simply a change of coordinates. The more difficult part is finding a good notation for the quantities involved.
You have two systems of coordinates: (x,y) are the cartesian coordinates of your display and (v,w) are the baricentric coordinates with respect to the vectors (c-a),(b-a) which determine another (non orthogonal) system.
What you need is to find the equation of the two lines in the (x,y) system, then it will be easy to project the point p on these lines.
To achieve this you could explicitly find the matrix to pass from (x,y) coordinates to (v,w) coordinates and back. The function you are using toBaryCoords makes this computation to find the coordinates (v,w) from (x,y) and we can reuse that function.
We want to find the coefficients of the transformation from world coordinates (x,y) to barycentric coordinates (v,w). It must be in the form
v = O_v + x_v * x + y_v * y
w = O_w + x_w * x + y_w * y
i.e.
(v,w) = (O_v,O_w) + (x_v,y_y) * (x,y)
and you can determine (O_v,O_w) by computing toBaryCoord(0,0), then find (x_v,x_w) by computing the coordinates of (1,0) and find (y_v,y_w)=toBaryCoord(1,0) - (O_v,O_w) and then find (y_v,y_w) by computing (y_v,y_w) = toBaryCoord(0,1)-(O_v,O_w).
This computation requires calling toBaryCoord three times, but actually the coefficients are computed inside that routine every time, so you could modify it to compute at once all six values.
The value of your function vp can be computed as follows. I will use f instead of v because we are using v for a baricenter coordinate. Hence in the following I mean f(x,y) = vp, fa = va, fb = vb, fc = vc.
You have:
f(v,w) = fa + (fb-fa)*v + (fc-fa)*w
i.e.
f(x,y) = fa + (fb-fa) (O_v + x_v * x + y_v * y) + (fc-fa) (O_w + x_w * x + y_w * y)
where (x,y) are the coordinates of your point p. You can check the validity of this equation by inserting the coordinates of the three vertices a, b, c and verify that you obtain the three values fa, fb and fc. Remember that the barycenter coordinates of a are (0,0) hence O_v + x_v * a_x + y_v * a_y = 0 and so on... (a_x and a_y are the x,y coordinates of the point a).
If you let
q = fa + (fb_fa)*O_v + (fc-fa)*O_w
fx = (fb-fa)*x_v + (fc-fa) * x_w
fy = (fb-fa)*y_v + (fc-fa) * y_w
you get
f(x,y) = q + fx*x + fy * y
Notice that q, fx and fy can be computed once from a,b,c,fa,fb,fc and you can reuse them if you only change the coordinates (x,y) of the point p.
Now if f(x,y)>max, you can easily project (x,y) on the line where max is achieved. The coordinates of the projection are:
(x',y') = (x,y) - [(x,y) * (fx,fy) - max + q]/[(fx,fy) * (fx,fy)] (fx,fy)
Now. You would like to have the code. Well here is some pseudo-code:
toBarycoord(Vector2(0,0),a,b,c,O);
toBarycoord(Vector2(1,0),a,b,c,X);
toBarycoord(Vector2(0,1),a,b,c,Y);
X.sub(O); // X = X - O
Y.sub(O); // Y = Y - O
V = Vector2(fb-fa,fc-fa);
q = fa + V.dot(O); // q = fa + V*O
N = Vector2(V.dot(X),V.dot(Y)); // N = (V*X,V*Y)
// p is the point to be considered
f = q + N.dot(p); // f = q + N*p
if (f > max) {
Vector2 tmp;
tmp.set(N);
tmp.multiply((N.dot(p) - max + q)/(N.dot(N))); // scalar multiplication
p.sub(tmp);
}
if (f < min) {
Vector2 tmp;
tmp.set(N);
tmp.multiply((N.dot(p) - min + q)/(N.dot(N))); // scalar multiplication
p.sum(tmp);
}
We think of the problem as follows: The three points are interpreted as a triangle floating in 3D space with the value being the Z-axis and the cartesian coordinates mapped to the X- and Y- axes respectively.
Then the question is to find the gradient of the plane that is defined by the three points. The lines where the plane intersects with the z = min and z = max planes are the lines you want to restrict your points to.
If you have found a point p where v(p) > max or v(p) < min we need to go in the direction of the steepest slope (the gradient) until v(p + k * g) = max or min respectively. g is the direction of the gradient and k is the factor we need to find. The coordinates you are looking for (in the cartesian coordinates) are the corresponding components of p + k * g.
In order to determine g we calculate the orthonormal vector that is perpendicular to the plane that is determined by the three points using the cross product:
// input: px, py, pz,
// output: p2x, p2y
// local variables
var v1x, v1y, v1z, v2x, v2y, v2z, nx, ny, nz, tp, k,
// two vectors pointing from b to a and c respectively
v1x = ax - bx;
v1y = ay - by;
v1z = az - bz;
v2x = cx - bx;
v2y = cy - by;
v2z = cz - bz;
// the cross poduct
nx = v2y * v1z - v2z * v1y;
ny = v2z * v1x - v2x * v1z;
nz = v2x * v1y - v2y * v1x;
// using the right triangle altitude theorem
// we can calculate the vector that is perpendicular to n
// in our triangle we are looking for q where p is nz, and h is sqrt(nx*nx+ny*ny)
// the theorem says p*q = h^2 so p = h^2 / q - we use tp to disambiguate with the point p - we need to negate the value as it points into the opposite Z direction
tp = -(nx*nx + ny*ny) / nz;
// now our vector g = (nx, ny, tp) points into the direction of the steepest slope
// and thus is perpendicular to the bounding lines
// given a point p (px, py, pz) we can now calculate the nearest point p2 (p2x, p2y, p2z) where min <= v(p2z) <= max
if (pz > max){
// find k
k = (max - pz) / tp;
p2x = px + k * nx;
p2y = py + k * ny;
// proof: p2z = v = pz + k * tp = pz + ((max - pz) / tp) * tp = pz + max - pz = max
} else if (pz < min){
// find k
k = (min - pz) / tp;
p2x = px + k * nx;
p2y = py + k * ny;
} else {
// already fits
p2x = px;
p2y = py;
}
Note that obviously if the triangle is vertically oriented (in 2D it's not a triangle anymore actually), nz becomes zero and tp cannot be calculated. That's because there are no more two lines where the value is min or max respectively. For this case you will have to choose another value on the remaining line or point.

Determining "fall-line" vector using 3-axis accelerometer

I am building a tilt-based Arduino device that needs to detect the "fall-line" vector of the device once it is tilted in a particular orientation. By "fall-line" I'll use the following example:
Imagine a frictionless plane with a point mass in the the middle of it and a 3-axis accelerometer mounted in the plane so that the x and y axes of the accelerometer are parallel to the plane. At rest, the plane is flat and the point mass does not move. Once the plane is tilted, the point mass will move in a particular direction at a given acceleration due to gravity. I need to calculate the angle in the x-y plane that the mass will move toward and a magnitude measure corresponding to the acceleration in that direction.
I realise this is probably simple Newtonian mechanics, but I have no idea how to work this out.
The direction of the "fall-line" and the magnitude of the acceleration are both determined by the projection of the gravitational pull vector onto the plane. If the plane has a normal vector n, then the projector operator is P( n ) = 1 - nn, where 1 is the identity operator and nn is the outer (tensor) product of the normal vector with itself. The projection of the gravitational pull vector g is simply g' = P( n ).g = (1 - nn) g = g - (n . g) n, where the dot denotes inner (dot) product. Now you only have to choose a suitable orthonormal reference frame (ex, ey, ez), where ei is a unit vector along direction i. In this reference frame:
n = nx ex + ny ey + nz ez
g = gx ex + gy ey + gz ez
The dot product n . g is then:
n . g = nx * gx + ny * gy + nz * gz
A very suitable choice of a reference frame is one where ez is collinear with n. Then nx = 0 and ny = 0 and nz = ||n|| = 1, because normal vectors are of unit length. In this frame n . g is simply gz. The components of the projection of g are then:
g'x = gx
g'y = gy
g'z = 0
The direction of g' in the XY plane can be determined by the fact that for the dot product in orthonormal reference frames a . b = ||a|| ||b|| cos(a, b), where ||a|| denotes the norm (length) of a and cos(a, b) is the cosine of the angle between a and b. If you measure the angle from the X direction, then:
g' . ex = (gx ex + gy ey) . ex = gx = ||g'|| ||ex|| cos(g', ex) = g' cos(g', ex)
where g' = ||g'|| = sqrt(gx^2 + gy^2). The angle is simply arccos(gx/g'), i.e. arc-cosine of the ratio between the X component of the gravity pull vector and the magnitude of its projection onto the XY plane:
angle = arccos[gx / sqrt(gx^2 + gy^2)]
The magnitude of the acceleration is proportional to the magnitude of g', which is (once again):
g' = ||g'|| = sqrt(gx^2 + gy^2)
Now the nice thing is that all accelerometers measure the components of the gravity field in a reference frame that usually have ex aligned with the height (or the width) of the device, the ex aligned with the width (or the height) of the device and ez is perpendicular to the surface of the device, which matches exactly the reference frame, where ez is collinear with the plane normal. If this is not the case with your Arduino device, simply rotate the accelerometer and align it as needed.

Define a function for a circle caps the end of a line segment

I need a function that returns points on a circle in three dimensions.
The circle should "cap" a line segment defined by points A and B and it's radius. each cap is perpendicular to the line segment. and centered at one of the endpoints.
Here is a shitty diagram
Let N be the unit vector in the direction from A to B, i.e., N = (B-A) / length(A-B). The first step is to find two more vectors X and Y such that {N, X, Y} form a basis. That means you want two more vectors so that all pairs of {N, X, Y} are perpendicular to each other and also so that they are all unit vectors. Another way to think about this is that you want to create a new coordinate system whose x-axis lines up with the line segment. You need to find vectors pointing in the direction of the y-axis and z-axis.
Note that there are infinitely many choices for X and Y. You just need to somehow find two that work.
One way to do this is to first find vectors {N, W, V} where N is from above and W and V are two of (1,0,0), (0,1,0), and (0,0,1). Pick the two vectors for W and V that correspond to the smallest coordinates of N. So if N = (.31, .95, 0) then you pick (1,0,0) and (0,0,1) for W and V. (Math geek note: This way of picking W and V ensures that {N,W,V} spans R^3). Then you apply the Gram-Schmidt process to {N, W, V} to get vectors {N, X, Y} as above. Note that you need the vector N to be the first vector so that it doesn't get changed by the process.
So now you have two vectors that are perpendicular to the line segment and perpendicular to each other. This means the points on the circle around A are X * cos t + Y * sin t + A where 0 <= t < 2 * pi. This is exactly like the usual description of a circle in two dimensions; it is just written in the new coordinate system described above.
As David Norman noted the crux is to find two orthogonal unit vectors X,Y that are orthogonal to N. However I think a simpler way to compute these is by finding the householder reflection Q that maps N to a multiple of (1,0,0) and then to take as X the image of (0,1,0) under Q and Y as the image of (0,0,1) under Q. While this might sound complicated it comes down to:
s = (N[0] > 0.0) ? 1.0 : -1.0
t = N[0] + s; f = -1.0/(s*t);
X[0] = f*N[1]*t; X[1] = 1 + f*N[1]*N[1]; X[2] = f*N[1]*N[2];
Y[0] = f*N[2]*t; Y[1] = f*N[1]*N[2]; Y[2] = 1 + f*N[2]*N[2];

Resources