I am doing a project on the TSP on the surface of the sphere. I would like to illustrate the method uniformly distributing points to the surface of the sphere, i.e. filling a cube with uniform (x,y,z) points with the restriction that x^2+y^2+z^2 > 1 and then dividing each radius vector by it's magnitude. I can plot the points along with the sphere but how do I go about specifying a radial vector to each point in gnuplot? Also, how does one specify a line to run through the points in their order? (The chosen path).
Related
Given two points and a control point, one can easily draw a bezier path between the two points. What I would like to do use a bezier curve to draw a path that with changing width, by a assigning a "weight" to a the points of the curve which will determine its width. For example, if I give weight=0 to the first point of the curve and weight = 1 to the second point of the curve then something like the following path should be generated (the curve in the picture is cubic, but I am working with quadratic bezier curves):
In order to do this I would need to find the control points of the "edge" curves that determine the shape and then fill the shape that is found between the two new curves. However, I am quite unsure on how this can be done. One thing I thought about was to determine the starting and ending points of the new curves by simple drawing perpendicular segments to the line connecting the original control point and the original end points, but this still doesn't solve the problem of finding the new control points for the new curves.
I would use cubics instead of quadratics.
Yes you offset the control points perpendicularly by your weight but not the control points of BEZIER but control points of interpolation cubic (or catmull-rom) and then just convert that into Bezier control points. See related QAs:
How can i produce multi point linear interpolation?
How to create bezier curves for an arc with different start and end tangent slopes
draw outline for some connected lines
However much easier would be to directly render curve using Shaders and (perpendicular) distance. See:
Draw Quadratic Curve on GPU
That way you would not need to offset anything just interpolate the width of your curve ...
Maybe this could help, also there is an example on variable offseting
https://microbians.com/mathcode
I have two objects: A sphere and an object. Its an object that I created using surface reconstruction - so we do not know the equation of the object. I want to know the intersecting points on the sphere when the object and the sphere intersect. If we had a sphere and a cylinder, we could solve for the equation and figure out the area and all that but the problem here is that the object is not uniform.
Is there a way to find out the intersecting points or area on the sphere?
I'd start by finding the intersection of triangles with the sphere. First find the intersection of each triangle's plane and the sphere, which gives a circle. Then find the circle's intersection/s with the triangle edges in 2D using line/circle tests. The result will be many arcs which I guess you could approximate with lines. I'm not really sure where to go from here without knowing the end goal.
If it's surface area you're after, maybe a numerical approach would be better. I'd cover the sphere in points and count the number inside the non-uniform object. To find if a point is inside, maybe trace outwards and count the intersections with the surface (if it's odd, the point is inside). You could use the stencil buffer for this if you wanted (similar to stencil shadows).
If you want the volume of intersection a quick google search gives "carve", a mesh based CSG library.
Starting with triangles versus the sphere will give you the points of intersection.
You can take the arcs of intersection with each surface and combine them to make fences around the sphere. Ideally your reconstructed object will be in winged-edge format so you could just step from one fence segment to the next, but with reconstructed surfaces I guess you might need to apply some slightly fuzzy logic.
You can determine which side of each fence is inside the reconstructed object and which side is out by factoring in the surface normals along the fence.
You can then cut the sphere along the fences and add the internal bits to the display.
For the other side of things you could remove any triangle completely inside the sphere and cut those that intersect.
I have a plane of cartesian points made up of a few points. I would like to use this small number of points to create a larger plane of points similar geometrically to the smaller plane. Is there an easy way to accomplish this?
1) Take three points that you know are coplanar, and calculate the normal vector to that polygon.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coplanarity From your normal, you can solve the plane formula and randomly generate other points on the same plane.
(to decide with what distribution to randomly generate the points, you could find the central mean of all points and their standard distribution from it, for example)
Looking at Convert a quadratic bezier to a cubic?, I can finally understand why programming teachers always told me that math was so important. Sadly, I didn't listen.
Can anyone provide a more concrete - e.g., computer-language-y - formula for converting a quadratic curve to a cubic? Understanding that there's some rounding errors possible, which is fine.
Given a quad curve represented by variables:
StartX, StartY
ControlX, ControlY
EndX, EndY
And desiring StartX, StartY and EndX, EndY to remain the same, but to now have Control1X, Control1Y and Control2X, Control2Y of a cubic curve.
Is it...
Control1X = StartX + (.66 * (ControlX - StartX))
Control2X = EndX + (.66 * (ControlX - EndX))
With the same essential functions used to calculate Control1Y and Control2Y?
Your code is right except that you should use 2.0/3.0 instead of 0.66.
You avoid most rounding errors by using
Control1 = (Start + 2 * Control) / 3
Control2 = (End + 2 * Control) / 3
Note that line segments are also convertible to cubic Bezier curves using:
Control1 = Start
Control2 = End
This can be handy when converting a complex path mixing various types of curves (linear, quadratic, cubic).
There's also a basic transform for converting elliptic arcs to cubic (with some minor unnoticeable errors): you just have to split at least the arc on elliptic quadrans (cutting the ellipse first on the two orthogonal axis of symetries, or on arbitrary orthogonal axis passing through the center if the ellipse is a circle, then representing each arc; when the ellipse is a circle, the two focal points are confused on the same point, the center of the circle, so you can use any direction for one of the orthogonal axis).
Many SVG renderers do that by adding an additional split on octants (so that you get also precise position not only for points where the two main axis are passing through, but also for two diagonal axis which are bissecting (when the ellipse is a circle) each quadrant (when the ellipse is not a circle, assimilate it as a circle flattened with a linear transform along the small axis only, you do the same computation), because octants are also quite precisely positioned:
cos(pi/4) = sin(pi/4) = sqrt(2)/2 ≈ 0.71, and because this additional splitting will allow precise rendering of tangents on points crossing the diagonals at 45 degrees of the circle.
A full ellipse is then converted to 8 cubic arcs (i.e. 8 points on ellipse and 16 control points): you'll almost not notice the difference between elliptical arcs and these generated cubic arcs
You can create an algorithm that uses the same "flattening error" computed when splitting a Bezier to a list of linear segments, which are then drawn using the classic fast Bresenham algo for line segments; a "flattenning" algorithm just has to measure the relative deviation of the sum of lengths of the two straight segments joining the two focal points of the ellipse to any point of the generated cubic arcs, as this sum is constant on any true ellipse: if you make this measurement on the generated control points for the cubic arcs, the difference should be below a given percentage of the expected sum, or within an absolute distance precision, and can be used to create better approximation of control points with a simple linear formula so that these added points will be on the real ellipse.
Such transform of arbitrary paths is useful when you want to derive other curves from the path, notably the curves of "buffers" at a given distance, notably when these paths must be converted to "strokes" with a defined "stroke width": you need to compute two "inner" and "outer" curves and then concentrate on how to converting the miters/buts/squares/rounded corners, and then to cut long miters at a convenient distance (matching the "miter limit" factor times the "stroke width").
More advanced renderers will also use miters represented by tangent circles when there's a corner between two arcs instead of two segments (this is useful for drawing cute geographic maps)...
Converting an arbitrary path mixing segments, elliptic and bezier arcs to only cubic arcs is a necessary step to compute precise images without excessive defects visible when zooming in. This is then necessary when your "stroke" buffers have to take some effects (such as computing dashes), and then enhancing the result with semi-transparent pixels or subpixels to smooth the rendered strokes (smoothing is easy to computez only when everything has been flattened to line segments, and alsos may be simpler to develop if it only has to manage paths containing only cubic beziers: it can easily be parallelized if needed and accelerated by hardware). Bezier arcs are always interesting because drawing them is fast and requires only basic arithmetics, and the time needed to draw them is proportional to the length of the curve with every point drawn with the same accuracy level.
In summary, all curves are representable by cubic Bezier arcs with a maximum measurable deviation allowed (you can set this maximum deviation to one half pixel, or one subpixel if you first scale up the measurement grid for half-toning or subpixel shading, and then represent accurately every curve with a reasonnaly fast rendering, and get accurate rendering at any zoom level with curves smoothed everywhere, including with half-toning or transparency levels when finally drawing the linear strokes with the classic Bresenham algorithm using fast integer-only arithmetics). These rendered curve will all have the correct tangeants everywhere, without any unexpected angles visible on approximation points, and the remaining control points in the approximation will make also a good smooth rendering of the curvature everywhere (i.e. radius of the tangeant circle), so you can use this approximation as well to derive other measurements such as acceleration, inertial forces, or magnetic effects of paths of charged particles).
If you ever need higher precision, use Bezier arcs with degree 4 (i.e. with 3 control points between points on curve) to get smoothed derivation at a supplementary degree (e.g. gradients of forces), or just split the cubic arcs with additional steps further, until the derivation is smooth enough (but using degree-4 Bezier arcs requires much less points curves and less control points for the same accuracy tolerances, than when using cubic Bezier only).
I came across this link http://www.mathopenref.com/coordpolygonarea2.html
It explains how to calculate the area of a polygon and helps to identify whether the polygon vertices we entered is clockwise or counter clockwise.
If area value is +ve, it is clockwise, if it is -nv then it is in counterclockwise.
My requirement is to identify only whether it is clockwise or counterclockwise. Is this rule will work correctly (though there are limitations as mentioned in the link). I have only regular polygons (not complicated, no self intersections) but the vertices are more.
I am not interested in the area value accuracy, just to know the ring rotation.
Any other thought on this.
For convex polygons:
Select two edges with a common vertex.
Lets say, edge1 is between vertex A and B. Edge2 is between vertex B and C.
Define to vectors: vect1: A----->B
vect2: B----->C
Cross product vect1 and vect2.
If the result is positive, the sequence A-->B-->C is Counter-clockwise.
If the result is negative, the sequence A-->B-->C is clockwise.
If you have only convex polygons (and all regular polygons are convex), and if your points are all organized consistently--either all counterclockwise or all clockwise--then you can determine which by just computing the (signed) area of one triangle determined by any three consecutive points. This is essentially computing the cross product of the two vectors along the two edges.