Related
I'm trying to align multiple line objects along a human body circumference depending on the orientation of the triangles from the mesh. I would like to put the lines parallel to the mesh. I correctly assign the position for the lines along the circumference, but I also need to add the rotation of the lines such that to be parallel with the body.
The body is a mesh formed by multiple triangles and every line is "linked" with a triangle.
All I have is:
3 points for the closest triangle from the mesh for every line
The normal of the triangle
The positions for the instantiated lines (2 points, start and end)
I need to calculate the angle for every X, Y, Z axes for the line such that the normal of the triangle is perpendicular with the line mesh. I don't know how to get the desired angle. I really appreciate if someone would like to help me.
input:
FVector TrianglePoints[3];
FVector Triangle_Normal; //Calculated as (B-A)^(C-A), where A,B,C are the points of the triangle
FVector linePosition; //I also have the start line and the endLine position if that helps
ouput:
//FRotator rotation(x,y,z), such that the triangle normal and the line object to be perpendicular.
An overview of the circumference line construction. Now the rotation is calculated using the Start position and End position for each line. When we cross some irregular parts of the mesh we want to rotate the lines correctly. Now the rotation is fixed, depending just on the line start and end position.
If I have understood correctly your goal, here is some related vector geometry:
A,B,C are the vertices of the triangle:
A = [xA, yA, zA],
B = [xB, yB, zB]
C = [xC, yC, zC]
K,L are the endpoints of the line-segment:
K = [xK, yK, zK]
L = [xL, yL, zL]
vectors are interpreted as row-vectors
by . I denote matrix multiplication
by x I denote cross product of 3D vectors
by t() I denote the transpose of a matrix
by | | I denote the norm (magnitude) of a vector
Goal: find the rotation matrix and rotation transformation of segment KL
around its midpoint, so that after rotation KL is parallel to the plane ABC
also, the rotation is the "minimal" angle rotation by witch we need to
rotate KL in order to make it parallel to ABC
AB = B - A
AC = C - A
KL = L - K
n = AB x AC
n = n / |n|
u = KL x n
u = u / |u|
v = n x u
cos = ( KL . t(v) ) / |KL|
sin = ( KL . t(n) ) / |KL|
U = [[ u[0], u[1], u[2] ],
[ v[0], v[1], v[2] ],
[ n[0], n[1], n[2] ],
R = [[1, 0, 0],
[0, cos, sin],
[0, -sin, cos]]
ROT = t(U).R.U
then, one can rotate the segment KL around its midpoint
M = (K + L)/2
Y = M + ROT (X - M)
Here is a python script version
A = np.array([0,0,0])
B = np.array([3,0,0])
C = np.array([2,3,0])
K = np.array([ -1,0,1])
L = np.array([ 2,2,2])
KL = L-K
U = np.empty((3,3), dtype=float)
U[2,:] = np.cross(B-A, C-A)
U[2,:] = U[2,:] / np.linalg.norm(U[2,:])
U[0,:] = np.cross(KL, U[2,:])
U[0,:] = U[0,:] / np.linalg.norm(U[0,:])
U[1,:] = np.cross(U[2,:], U[0,:])
norm_KL = np.linalg.norm(KL)
cos_ = KL.dot(U[1,:]) / norm_KL
sin_ = KL.dot(U[2,:]) / norm_KL
R = np.array([[1, 0, 0],
[0, cos_, sin_],
[0,-sin_, cos_]])
ROT = (U.T).dot(R.dot(U))
M = (K+L) / 2
K_rot = M + ROT.dot( K - M )
L_rot = M + ROT.dot( L - M )
print(L_rot)
print(K_rot)
print(L_rot-K_rot)
print((L_rot-K_rot).dot(U[2,:]))
A more inspired solution was to use a procedural mesh, generated at runtime, that have all the requirements that I need:
Continuously along multiple vertices
Easy to apply a UV map for texture tiling
Can be updated at runtime
Isn't hard to compute/work with it
I'am working with Madgwick algorithm who gives me a Quaternions for accelerometer and gyro.
So I can get the angle from q0 with this formula 2 * acors(q0) it's works I've tried and I got the good value. But now I don't understand how can I know for x or y has rotate to x° because I have only one angle with Quaternion.
For example imagine I have this Quaternion q0 to q3 {0,71, 0,18, -0,65, 0.30}, so for q0 equals to 0.71 I have an angle to 90°. but in my example x and y are different, so how can I know x is 90° and y is 20° for example, is it possible without using Euler angle?
I've tried this formula for x q1/sin(angle/2) but the result doesn't convince me....
If you have quaternion (u is unit vector, direction vector of rotation axis)
(cos(a/2), u * sin(a/2))
and want to know how vector V is transformed with this quaternion (in the end of Rotation Identity section)
V' = Vperp*cos(a) + (u x Vperp) * sin(a) + Vpara
where Vperp and Vpara are components of vector V perpendicular and parallel to vector u
Vpara = u * (u.dot.V)
Vperp = V - Vpara
Example:
let rotation axis (u) is (0.707, 0.707, 0), we want to know how
OX-aligned vector (1,0,0) will look after rotation by 180 degrees
Vpara = (0.707, 0.707, 0) * (0.707*1 + 0.707*0 + 0) = (0.5, 0.5, 0)
Vperp = (1, 0, 0) - (0.5, 0.5, 0) = (0.5, -0.5, 0)
V' = (0.5, -0.5, 0) * -1 + (u x Vperp) * 0 + (0.5, 0.5, 0) = (0, 1, 0)
(OX becomes OY)
I have a square bitmap of a circle and I want to compute the normals of all the pixels in that circle as if it were a sphere of radius 1:
The sphere/circle is centered in the bitmap.
What is the equation for this?
Don't know much about how people program 3D stuff, so I'll just give the pure math and hope it's useful.
Sphere of radius 1, centered on origin, is the set of points satisfying:
x2 + y2 + z2 = 1
We want the 3D coordinates of a point on the sphere where x and y are known. So, just solve for z:
z = ±sqrt(1 - x2 - y2).
Now, let us consider a unit vector pointing outward from the sphere. It's a unit sphere, so we can just use the vector from the origin to (x, y, z), which is, of course, <x, y, z>.
Now we want the equation of a plane tangent to the sphere at (x, y, z), but this will be using its own x, y, and z variables, so instead I'll make it tangent to the sphere at (x0, y0, z0). This is simply:
x0x + y0y + z0z = 1
Hope this helps.
(OP):
you mean something like:
const int R = 31, SZ = power_of_two(R*2);
std::vector<vec4_t> p;
for(int y=0; y<SZ; y++) {
for(int x=0; x<SZ; x++) {
const float rx = (float)(x-R)/R, ry = (float)(y-R)/R;
if(rx*rx+ry*ry > 1) { // outside sphere
p.push_back(vec4_t(0,0,0,0));
} else {
vec3_t normal(rx,sqrt(1.-rx*rx-ry*ry),ry);
p.push_back(vec4_t(normal,1));
}
}
}
It does make a nice spherical shading-like shading if I treat the normals as colours and blit it; is it right?
(TZ)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with those aspects of C++. Haven't used the language very much, nor recently.
This formula is often used for "fake-envmapping" effect.
double x = 2.0 * pixel_x / bitmap_size - 1.0;
double y = 2.0 * pixel_y / bitmap_size - 1.0;
double r2 = x*x + y*y;
if (r2 < 1)
{
// Inside the circle
double z = sqrt(1 - r2);
.. here the normal is (x, y, z) ...
}
Obviously you're limited to assuming all the points are on one half of the sphere or similar, because of the missing dimension. Past that, it's pretty simple.
The middle of the circle has a normal facing precisely in or out, perpendicular to the plane the circle is drawn on.
Each point on the edge of the circle is facing away from the middle, and thus you can calculate the normal for that.
For any point between the middle and the edge, you use the distance from the middle, and some simple trig (which eludes me at the moment). A lerp is roughly accurate at some points, but not quite what you need, since it's a curve. Simple curve though, and you know the beginning and end values, so figuring them out should only take a simple equation.
I think I get what you're trying to do: generate a grid of depth data for an image. Sort of like ray-tracing a sphere.
In that case, you want a Ray-Sphere Intersection test:
http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/raytrace/rtinter1.htm
Your rays will be simple perpendicular rays, based off your U/V coordinates (times two, since your sphere has a diameter of 2). This will give you the front-facing points on the sphere.
From there, calculate normals as below (point - origin, the radius is already 1 unit).
Ripped off from the link above:
You have to combine two equations:
Ray: R(t) = R0 + t * Rd , t > 0 with R0 = [X0, Y0, Z0] and Rd = [Xd, Yd, Zd]
Sphere: S = the set of points[xs, ys, zs], where (xs - xc)2 + (ys - yc)2 + (zs - zc)2 = Sr2
To do this, calculate your ray (x * pixel / width, y * pixel / width, z: 1), then:
A = Xd^2 + Yd^2 + Zd^2
B = 2 * (Xd * (X0 - Xc) + Yd * (Y0 - Yc) + Zd * (Z0 - Zc))
C = (X0 - Xc)^2 + (Y0 - Yc)^2 + (Z0 - Zc)^2 - Sr^2
Plug into quadratic equation:
t0, t1 = (- B + (B^2 - 4*C)^1/2) / 2
Check discriminant (B^2 - 4*C), and if real root, the intersection is:
Ri = [xi, yi, zi] = [x0 + xd * ti , y0 + yd * ti, z0 + zd * ti]
And the surface normal is:
SN = [(xi - xc)/Sr, (yi - yc)/Sr, (zi - zc)/Sr]
Boiling it all down:
So, since we're talking unit values, and rays that point straight at Z (no x or y component), we can boil down these equations greatly:
Ray:
X0 = 2 * pixelX / width
Y0 = 2 * pixelY / height
Z0 = 0
Xd = 0
Yd = 0
Zd = 1
Sphere:
Xc = 1
Yc = 1
Zc = 1
Factors:
A = 1 (unit ray)
B
= 2 * (0 + 0 + (0 - 1))
= -2 (no x/y component)
C
= (X0 - 1) ^ 2 + (Y0 - 1) ^ 2 + (0 - 1) ^ 2 - 1
= (X0 - 1) ^ 2 + (Y0 - 1) ^ 2
Discriminant
= (-2) ^ 2 - 4 * 1 * C
= 4 - 4 * C
From here:
If discriminant < 0:
Z = ?, Normal = ?
Else:
t = (2 + (discriminant) ^ 1 / 2) / 2
If t < 0 (hopefully never or always the case)
t = -t
Then:
Z: t
Nx: Xi - 1
Ny: Yi - 1
Nz: t - 1
Boiled farther still:
Intuitively it looks like C (X^2 + Y^2) and the square-root are the most prominent figures here. If I had a better recollection of my math (in particular, transformations on exponents of sums), then I'd bet I could derive this down to what Tom Zych gave you. Since I can't, I'll just leave it as above.
I have two vectors u and v. Is there a way of finding a quaternion representing the rotation from u to v?
Quaternion q;
vector a = crossproduct(v1, v2);
q.xyz = a;
q.w = sqrt((v1.Length ^ 2) * (v2.Length ^ 2)) + dotproduct(v1, v2);
Don't forget to normalize q.
Richard is right about there not being a unique rotation, but the above should give the "shortest arc," which is probably what you need.
Half-Way Vector Solution
I came up with the solution that I believe Imbrondir was trying to present (albeit with a minor mistake, which was probably why sinisterchipmunk had trouble verifying it).
Given that we can construct a quaternion representing a rotation around an axis like so:
q.w == cos(angle / 2)
q.x == sin(angle / 2) * axis.x
q.y == sin(angle / 2) * axis.y
q.z == sin(angle / 2) * axis.z
And that the dot and cross product of two normalized vectors are:
dot == cos(theta)
cross.x == sin(theta) * perpendicular.x
cross.y == sin(theta) * perpendicular.y
cross.z == sin(theta) * perpendicular.z
Seeing as a rotation from u to v can be achieved by rotating by theta (the angle between the vectors) around the perpendicular vector, it looks as though we can directly construct a quaternion representing such a rotation from the results of the dot and cross products; however, as it stands, theta = angle / 2, which means that doing so would result in twice the desired rotation.
One solution is to compute a vector half-way between u and v, and use the dot and cross product of u and the half-way vector to construct a quaternion representing a rotation of twice the angle between u and the half-way vector, which takes us all the way to v!
There is a special case, where u == -v and a unique half-way vector becomes impossible to calculate. This is expected, given the infinitely many "shortest arc" rotations which can take us from u to v, and we must simply rotate by 180 degrees around any vector orthogonal to u (or v) as our special-case solution. This is done by taking the normalized cross product of u with any other vector not parallel to u.
Pseudo code follows (obviously, in reality the special case would have to account for floating point inaccuracies -- probably by checking the dot products against some threshold rather than an absolute value).
Also note that there is no special case when u == v (the identity quaternion is produced -- check and see for yourself).
// N.B. the arguments are _not_ axis and angle, but rather the
// raw scalar-vector components.
Quaternion(float w, Vector3 xyz);
Quaternion get_rotation_between(Vector3 u, Vector3 v)
{
// It is important that the inputs are of equal length when
// calculating the half-way vector.
u = normalized(u);
v = normalized(v);
// Unfortunately, we have to check for when u == -v, as u + v
// in this case will be (0, 0, 0), which cannot be normalized.
if (u == -v)
{
// 180 degree rotation around any orthogonal vector
return Quaternion(0, normalized(orthogonal(u)));
}
Vector3 half = normalized(u + v);
return Quaternion(dot(u, half), cross(u, half));
}
The orthogonal function returns any vector orthogonal to the given vector. This implementation uses the cross product with the most orthogonal basis vector.
Vector3 orthogonal(Vector3 v)
{
float x = abs(v.x);
float y = abs(v.y);
float z = abs(v.z);
Vector3 other = x < y ? (x < z ? X_AXIS : Z_AXIS) : (y < z ? Y_AXIS : Z_AXIS);
return cross(v, other);
}
Half-Way Quaternion Solution
This is actually the solution presented in the accepted answer, and it seems to be marginally faster than the half-way vector solution (~20% faster by my measurements, though don't take my word for it). I'm adding it here in case others like myself are interested in an explanation.
Essentially, instead of calculating a quaternion using a half-way vector, you can calculate the quaternion which results in twice the required rotation (as detailed in the other solution), and find the quaternion half-way between that and zero degrees.
As I explained before, the quaternion for double the required rotation is:
q.w == dot(u, v)
q.xyz == cross(u, v)
And the quaternion for zero rotation is:
q.w == 1
q.xyz == (0, 0, 0)
Calculating the half-way quaternion is simply a matter of summing the quaternions and normalizing the result, just like with vectors. However, as is also the case with vectors, the quaternions must have the same magnitude, otherwise the result will be skewed towards the quaternion with the larger magnitude.
A quaternion constructed from the dot and cross product of two vectors will have the same magnitude as those products: length(u) * length(v). Rather than dividing all four components by this factor, we can instead scale up the identity quaternion. And if you were wondering why the accepted answer seemingly complicates matters by using sqrt(length(u) ^ 2 * length(v) ^ 2), it's because the squared length of a vector is quicker to calculate than the length, so we can save one sqrt calculation. The result is:
q.w = dot(u, v) + sqrt(length_2(u) * length_2(v))
q.xyz = cross(u, v)
And then normalize the result. Pseudo code follows:
Quaternion get_rotation_between(Vector3 u, Vector3 v)
{
float k_cos_theta = dot(u, v);
float k = sqrt(length_2(u) * length_2(v));
if (k_cos_theta / k == -1)
{
// 180 degree rotation around any orthogonal vector
return Quaternion(0, normalized(orthogonal(u)));
}
return normalized(Quaternion(k_cos_theta + k, cross(u, v)));
}
The problem as stated is not well-defined: there is not a unique rotation for a given pair of vectors. Consider the case, for example, where u = <1, 0, 0> and v = <0, 1, 0>. One rotation from u to v would be a pi / 2 rotation around the z-axis. Another rotation from u to v would be a pi rotation around the vector <1, 1, 0>.
I'm not much good on Quaternion. However I struggled for hours on this, and could not make Polaris878 solution work. I've tried pre-normalizing v1 and v2. Normalizing q. Normalizing q.xyz. Yet still I don't get it. The result still didn't give me the right result.
In the end though I found a solution that did. If it helps anyone else, here's my working (python) code:
def diffVectors(v1, v2):
""" Get rotation Quaternion between 2 vectors """
v1.normalize(), v2.normalize()
v = v1+v2
v.normalize()
angle = v.dot(v2)
axis = v.cross(v2)
return Quaternion( angle, *axis )
A special case must be made if v1 and v2 are paralell like v1 == v2 or v1 == -v2 (with some tolerance), where I believe the solutions should be Quaternion(1, 0,0,0) (no rotation) or Quaternion(0, *v1) (180 degree rotation)
Why not represent the vector using pure quaternions? It's better if you normalize them first perhaps.
q1 = (0 ux uy uz)'
q2 = (0 vx vy vz)'
q1 qrot = q2
Pre-multiply with q1-1
qrot = q1-1 q2
where q1-1 = q1conj / qnorm
This is can be thought of as "left division".
Right division, which is not what you want is:
qrot,right = q2-1 q1
From algorithm point of view , the fastest solution looks in pseudocode
Quaternion shortest_arc(const vector3& v1, const vector3& v2 )
{
// input vectors NOT unit
Quaternion q( cross(v1, v2), dot(v1, v2) );
// reducing to half angle
q.w += q.magnitude(); // 4 multiplication instead of 6 and more numerical stable
// handling close to 180 degree case
//... code skipped
return q.normalized(); // normalize if you need UNIT quaternion
}
Be sure that you need unit quaternions (usualy, it is required for interpolation).
NOTE:
Nonunit quaternions can be used with some operations faster than unit.
Some of the answers don't seem to consider possibility that cross product could be 0. Below snippet uses angle-axis representation:
//v1, v2 are assumed to be normalized
Vector3 axis = v1.cross(v2);
if (axis == Vector3::Zero())
axis = up();
else
axis = axis.normalized();
return toQuaternion(axis, ang);
The toQuaternion can be implemented as follows:
static Quaternion toQuaternion(const Vector3& axis, float angle)
{
auto s = std::sin(angle / 2);
auto u = axis.normalized();
return Quaternion(std::cos(angle / 2), u.x() * s, u.y() * s, u.z() * s);
}
If you are using Eigen library, you can also just do:
Quaternion::FromTwoVectors(from, to)
Working just with normalized quaternions, we can express Joseph Thompson's answer in the follwing terms.
Let q_v = (0, u_x, v_y, v_z) and q_w = (0, v_x, v_y, v_z) and consider
q = q_v * q_w = (-u dot v, u x v).
So representing q as q(q_0, q_1, q_2, q_3) we have
q_r = (1 - q_0, q_1, q_2, q_3).normalize()
According to the derivation of the quaternion rotation between two angles, one can rotate a vector u to vector v with
function fromVectors(u, v) {
d = dot(u, v)
w = cross(u, v)
return Quaternion(d + sqrt(d * d + dot(w, w)), w).normalize()
}
If it is known that the vectors u to vector v are unit vectors, the function reduces to
function fromUnitVectors(u, v) {
return Quaternion(1 + dot(u, v), cross(u, v)).normalize()
}
Depending on your use-case, handling the cases when the dot product is 1 (parallel vectors) and -1 (vectors pointing in opposite directions) may be needed.
The Generalized Solution
function align(Q, u, v)
U = quat(0, ux, uy, uz)
V = quat(0, vx, vy, vz)
return normalize(length(U*V)*Q - V*Q*U)
To find the quaternion of smallest rotation which rotate u to v, use
align(quat(1, 0, 0, 0), u, v)
Why This Generalization?
R is the quaternion closest to Q which will rotate u to v. More importantly, R is the quaternion closest to Q whose local u direction points in same direction as v.
This can be used to give you all possible rotations which rotate from u to v, depending on the choice of Q. If you want the minimal rotation from u to v, as the other solutions give, use Q = quat(1, 0, 0, 0).
Most commonly, I find that the real operation you want to do is a general alignment of one axis with another.
// If you find yourself often doing something like
quatFromTo(toWorldSpace(Q, localFrom), worldTo)*Q
// you should instead consider doing
align(Q, localFrom, worldTo)
Example
Say you want the quaternion Y which only represents Q's yaw, the pure rotation about the y axis. We can compute Y with the following.
Y = align(quat(Qw, Qx, Qy, Qz), vec(0, 1, 0), vec(0, 1, 0))
// simplifies to
Y = normalize(quat(Qw, 0, Qy, 0))
Alignment as a 4x4 Projection Matrix
If you want to perform the same alignment operation repeatedly, because this operation is the same as the projection of a quaternion onto a 2D plane embedded in 4D space, we can represent this operation as the multiplication with 4x4 projection matrix, A*Q.
I = mat4(
1, 0, 0, 0,
0, 1, 0, 0,
0, 0, 1, 0,
0, 0, 0, 1)
A = I - leftQ(V)*rightQ(U)/length(U*V)
// which expands to
A = mat4(
1 + ux*vx + uy*vy + uz*vz, uy*vz - uz*vy, uz*vx - ux*vz, ux*vy - uy*vx,
uy*vz - uz*vy, 1 + ux*vx - uy*vy - uz*vz, uy*vx + ux*vy, uz*vx + ux*vz,
uz*vx - ux*vz, uy*vx + ux*vy, 1 - ux*vx + uy*vy - uz*vz, uz*vy + uy*vz,
ux*vy - uy*vx, uz*vx + ux*vz, uz*vy + uy*vz, 1 - ux*vx - uy*vy + uz*vz)
// A can be applied to Q with the usual matrix-vector multiplication
R = normalize(A*Q)
//LeftQ is a 4x4 matrix which represents the multiplication on the left
//RightQ is a 4x4 matrix which represents the multiplication on the Right
LeftQ(w, x, y, z) = mat4(
w, -x, -y, -z,
x, w, -z, y,
y, z, w, -x,
z, -y, x, w)
RightQ(w, x, y, z) = mat4(
w, -x, -y, -z,
x, w, z, -y,
y, -z, w, x,
z, y, -x, w)
I am working on a geometry problem that requires finding the intersection of two parabolic arcs in any rotation. I was able to intesect a line and a parabolic arc by rotating the plane to align the arc with an axis, but two parabolas cannot both align with an axis. I am working on deriving the formulas, but I would like to know if there is a resource already available for this.
I'd first define the equation for the parabolic arc in 2D without rotations:
x(t) = ax² + bx + c
y(t) = t;
You can now apply the rotation by building a rotation matrix:
s = sin(angle)
c = cos(angle)
matrix = | c -s |
| s c |
Apply that matrix and you'll get the rotated parametric equation:
x' (t) = x(t) * c - s*t;
y' (t) = x(t) * s + c*t;
This will give you two equations (for x and y) of your parabolic arcs.
Do that for both of your rotated arcs and subtract them. This gives you an equation like this:
xa'(t) = rotated equation of arc1 in x
ya'(t) = rotated equation of arc1 in y.
xb'(t) = rotated equation of arc2 in x
yb'(t) = rotated equation of arc2 in y.
t1 = parametric value of arc1
t2 = parametric value of arc2
0 = xa'(t1) - xb'(t2)
0 = ya'(t1) - yb'(t2)
Each of these equation is just a order 2 polynomial. These are easy to solve.
To find the intersection points you solve the above equation (e.g. find the roots).
You'll get up to two roots for each axis. Any root that is equal on x and y is an intersection point between the curves.
Getting the position is easy now: Just plug the root into your parametric equation and you can directly get x and y.
Unfortunately, the general answer requires solution of a fourth-order polynomial. If we transform coordinates so one of the two parabolas is in the standard form y=x^2, then the second parabola satisfies (ax+by)^2+cx+dy+e==0. To find the intersection, solve both simultaneously. Substituting in y=x^2 we see that the result is a fourth-order polynomial: (ax+bx^2)^2+cx+dx^2+e==0. Nils solution therefore won't work (his mistake: each one is a 2nd order polynomial in each variable separately, but together they're not).
It's easy if you have a CAS at hand.
See the solution in Mathematica.
Choose one parabola and change coordinates so its equation becomes y(x)=a x^2 (Normal form).
The other parabola will have the general form:
A x^2 + B x y + CC y^2 + DD x + EE y + F == 0
where B^2-4 A C ==0 (so it's a parabola)
Let's solve a numeric case:
p = {a -> 1, A -> 1, B -> 2, CC -> 1, DD -> 1, EE -> -1, F -> 1};
p1 = {ToRules#N#Reduce[
(A x^2 + B x y + CC y^2 + DD x + EE y +F /. {y -> a x^2 } /. p) == 0, x]}
{{x -> -2.11769}, {x -> -0.641445},
{x -> 0.379567- 0.76948 I},
{x -> 0.379567+ 0.76948 I}}
Let's plot it:
Show[{
Plot[a x^2 /. p, {x, -10, 10}, PlotRange -> {{-10, 10}, {-5, 5}}],
ContourPlot[(A x^2 + B x y + CC y^2 + DD x + EE y + F /. p) ==
0, {x, -10, 10}, {y, -10, 10}],
Graphics[{
PointSize[Large], Pink, Point[{x, x^2} /. p /. p1[[1]]],
PointSize[Large], Pink, Point[{x, x^2} /. p /. p1[[2]]]
}]}]
The general solution involves calculating the roots of:
4 A F + 4 A DD x + (4 A^2 + 4 a A EE) x^2 + 4 a A B x^3 + a^2 B^2 x^4 == 0
Which is done easily in any CAS.