I'm writing a reader for glTF/GLB files in R. Reading through the spec at https://www.khronos.org/registry/glTF/specs/2.0/glTF-2.0.html, the relation between nodes and their children is unclear to me.
A node may have properties defining the transform (matrix, rotation, scale, translation). Do its children inherit this transform? If they specify their own transform, does it replace the parent one, or is it composed with it?
It also may have a camera spec. If the child has one as well, does it replace the parent one, or are they combined somehow?
The child node's transformation is always composed with the parent one. For example, if the parent had a +5 X translation, and the child had a 90deg Y rotation, the resulting child mesh would be positioned at +5 X with the rotated orientation.
Note that matrix is mutually exclusive with the other three (translation, rotation, scale), so a given node must not mix matrix with any of the other forms of transformation. However, a parent could use matrix with children that use the other 3 transforms, or vice versa.
Typically camera appears on a leaf node, although that's not required. If a parent and child both have camera objects, they are considered two separate cameras, although the child's camera will move when the parent is repositioned.
If you get glTF working in R, please let us know with an issue or PR for https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF-Project-Explorer, thanks!
Related
How do you get coordinate of the element if you have the locator? That means you can use appium-desktop to get the locator find coordinate by script. If I have A's coordinate because I can guess coordinate of many elements around of A which can't find the element or coordinate.
Appium has a method that allows you to retrieve the screen location of an element using its locator.
http://appium.io/docs/en/commands/element/attributes/location/
Scenario
I have a 3D environment which contains a 3D scene and a '2D' scene.
The 3D scene contains a cube and a perspective camera.
The '2D' scene contains 4 round objects and an orthographic camera. These round objects can be moved around by the user therefor the orthographic camera is used otherwise the round objects can be moved 'in depth' (along z-axis) and could change in size and i want them to maintain size.
Depending on positioning the round objects, the corners of the cube in the 3D scene should be aligned with the positions of the round objects. And maintaining perspective.
Edit:
What i am trying to accomplish is: Based on an image of a room a user uses those round objects to define the dimensions of the room. Based on those dimensions a hidden cube is positioned to act as a boundery box. The next step would be to add 3d objects to the scene and maintaining perspective of the room.
I tried explaining this scenario in a picture:
Problems
Basically i have no clue where to start.
The round objects are in a '2D' environment because of the orthographic camera, therefor i have no depth value that i think i need.
I think i need some perspective transformation based on camera positions/settings? There are all sorts of matrices that could be produced but don't know how to implement them.
Sources i studied
http://www.graphicsmill.com/docs/gm/affine-and-projective-transformations.htm
below is a similar situation
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/296794/finding-the-transform-matrix-from-4-projected-points-with-javascript
Cannot post more links because of my reputation
I hope someone can make this clear or point me in the right direction
Counting the real degrees of freedom, I would say that you don't have enough data. Imagine the projetive camera of the 3D scene as an actual pinhole camera. Then the image that camera creates on its film, sensor or whatever is described by at least 9 parameters:
3 parameters for the position of the camera in space,
2 parameters for the direction the camera is looking at and
1 parameter rotating the camera + sensor around their optical axis,
1 parameter determining the distance from pinhole to sensor and
2 parameters translating the sensor in its plane
On the other hand, knowing a projective transformation from one plane to another, e.g. using my answer to the question you already referenced, will only yield 8 geometrically meaningful parameters. So you cannot hope to reconstruct the camera position from that, so you cannot find the image of the 3D scene that would fit your markers. The Wikipedia article on 3D pose estimation writes that
Most implementations of POSIT only work on non-coplanar points (in other words, it won't work with flat objects or planes).[3]
That being said, you gave an example of where someone is actually doing this! So how do they do it? Honestly, I'm not sure, but they would have to make use of some additional knowledge or extra assumptions. For example, if they knew details about their camera (focal length, relative position between lens and sensor, or something like that), that could provide the required data. Since these apps tend to work on mobile devices, I think it rather likely that they might have either an API to request these things or a database where they can be looked up for the more common devices.
Judging from your question, you don't have that. Neither do you have all the vertical edges of the cube depicted vertically parallel to one another, which would have been another possible way to add more information. You have to come up with one more piece of information in order to allow for a hopefully unique solution.
Of course, without more information the system is just underspecified. It's not hard to find any transformation matrix which does what you requested. Actually the answer I references is placed in a setup where a 2D to 2D map is to be modeled using a 3D transformation matrix. You can do the same and be done with it. But your users might become frustrated, since the transformation they obtain might do completely wrong things to the out-of-plane direction, and there is no knob to tune that to the correct behavior.
Most solution to this problem propose to do a Depth/Breadth first search.
I however use the following constraints to determine whether a graph is a tree:
All nodes have one parent only, except root which has no parent;
All nodes are connected: they have 1 parent or N children;
It seems this is not sufficient. Why? Can you provide an example respecting my constraints which is not a tree?
In a general undirected graph, you cannot determine who is the child and who is the parent.
Is there a fast way to get the viewport coordinates of QGraphicsItems in a QGraphicsView? The only way I can think of is to call QGraphicsView::items(), and then QGraphicsItem::pos() followed by QGraphicsView::mapFromScene.
I must be missing something, though, because items are already converted to viewport coordinates to position them correctly on the QGraphicsView, so converting it to viewport coordinates again with mapFromScene seems inefficient--especially because in my case this is occurring often and for many items. Is there a more direct approach?
Probably not. A QGraphicScene can be rendered by more than one QGraphicsView simultaneously. It makes no sense to keep only one set of view port coordinates.
Also. All operation between QGraphicsItems are calculated in scene coordinate directly. Events from view port are convert to scene before processing. Working off view port which is only integer-based can also loose precision. A QGraphicsView is only a representation of the mathematical model of a scene. It's not the actual model.
Maybe you can ask a more specific question on what exactly you are trying to accomplish. There may be a better way to do it in scene coordinate.
Let's say I have circular objects. Each object has a diameter of 64 pixels.
The cells of my quad tree are let's say 96x96 pixels.
Everything will be fine and working well when I check collision from the cell a circle is residing in + all it's neighbor cells.
BUT what if I have one circle that has a diameter of 512 pixels? It would cover many cells and thus this would be a problem when checking only the neighbor cells. But I can't re-size my quad-tree-grid every time a much larger object is inserted into the tree...
Instead och putting objects into a single cell put them in all cells they collide with. That way you can just test each cell individually. Use pointers to the object so you dont create copies. Also you only need to do this with leavenodes, so no need to combine data contained in higher nodes with lower ones.
This an interesting problem. Maybe you can extend the node or the cell with a tree height information? If you have an object bigger then the smallest cell nest it with the tree height. That's what map's application like google or bing maps does.
Here a link to a similar solution: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/588426-2d-quadtree-collision---variety-in-size. I was confusing the screen with the quadtree. You can check collision with a simple recusion.
Oversearching
During the search, and starting with the largest objects first...
Test Object.Position.X against QuadTreeNode.Centre.X, and also
test Object.Position.Y against QuadTreeNode.Centre.Y;
... Then, by taking the Absolute value of the difference, treat the object as lying within a specific child node whenever the absolute value is NOT more than the radius of the object...
... that is, when some portion of the object intrudes into that quad : )
The same can be done with AABB (Axis Aligned Bounding Boxes)
The only real caveat here is that VERY large objects that cover most of the screen, will force a search of the entire tree. In these cases, a different approach may be called for.
Of course, this only takes care of the object that everything else is being tested against. To ensure that all the other large objects in the world are properly identified, you will need to alter your quadtree slightly...
Use Multiple Appearances
In this variation on the QuadTree we ONLY place objects in the leaf nodes of the QuadTree, as pointers. Larger objects may appear in multiple leaf nodes.
Since some objects have multiple appearances in the tree, we need a way to avoid them once they've already been tested against.
So...
A simple Boolean WasHit flag can avoid testing the same object multiple times in a hit-test pass... and a 'cleanup' can be run on all 'hit' objects so that they are ready for the next test.
Whilst this makes sense, it is wasteful if performing all-vs-all hit-tests
So... Getting a little cleverer, we can avoid having any cleanup at all by using a Pointer 'ptrLastObjectTestedAgainst' inside of each object in the scene. This avoids re-testing the same objects on this run (the pointer is set after the first encounter)
It does not require resetting when testing a new object against the scene (the new object has a different pointer value than the last one). This avoids the need to reset the pointer as you would with a simple Bool flag.
I've used the latter approach in scenes with vastly different object sizes and it worked well.
Elastic QuadTrees
I've also used an 'elastic' QuadTree. Basically, you set a limit on how many items can IDEALLY fit in each QuadTreeNode - But, unlike a standard QuadTree, you allow the code to override this limit in specific cases.
The overriding rule here is that an object may NOT be placed into a Node that cannot hold it ENTIRELY... with the top node catching any objects that are larger than the screen.
Thus, small objects will continue to 'fall through' to form a regular QuadTree but large objects will not always fall all the way through to the leaf node - but will instead expand the node that last fitted them.
Think of the non-leaf nodes as 'sieving' the objects as they fall down the tree
This turns out to be a very efficient choice for many scenarios : )
Conclusion
Remember that these standard algorithms are useful general tools, but they are not a substitute for thinking about your specific problem. Do not fall into the trap of using a specific algorithm or library 'just because it is well known' ... your application is unique, and it may benefit from a slightly different approach.
Therefore, don't just learn to apply algorithms ... learn from those algorithms, and apply the principles themselves in novel and fitting ways. These are NOT the only tools, nor are they necessarily the best fit for your application.
Hope some of those ideas helped.