Related
I am trying to figure out where a bunch of line-segments clip into a window around them. I saw the Liang–Barsky algorithm, but that seems to assume the segments already clip the edges of the window, which these do not.
Say I have a window from (0,0) to (26,16), and the following segments:
(7,6) - (16,3)
(10,6) - (19,6)
(13,10) - (21,3)
(16,12) - (19,14)
Illustration:
I imagine I need to extend the segments to a certain X or Y point, till they hit the edge of the window, but I don't know how.
How would I find the points where these segments (converted to lines?) clip into the edge of the window? I will be implementing this in C#, but this is pretty language-agnostic.
If you have two line segments P and Q with points
P0 - P1
Q0 - Q1
The line equations are
P = P0 + t(P1 - P0)
Q = Q0 + r(Q1 - Q0)
then to find out where they intersect after extension you need to solve the following equation for t and r
P0 + t(P1 - P0) = Q0 + r(Q1 - Q0)
The following code can do this. ( Extracted from my own code base )
public static (double t, double r )? SolveIntersect(this Segment2D P, Segment2D Q)
{
// a-d are the entries of a 2x2 matrix
var a = P.P1.X - P.P0.X;
var b = -Q.P1.X + Q.P0.X;
var c = P.P1.Y - P.P0.Y;
var d = -Q.P1.Y + Q.P0.Y;
var det = a*d - b*c;
if (Math.Abs( det ) < Utility.ZERO_TOLERANCE)
return null;
var x = Q.P0.X - P.P0.X;
var y = Q.P0.Y - P.P0.Y;
var t = 1/det*(d*x - b*y);
var r = 1/det*(-c*x + a*y);
return (t, r);
}
If null is returned from the function then it means the lines are parallel and cannot intersect. If a result is returned then you can do.
var result = SolveIntersect( P, Q );
if (result != null)
{
var ( t, r) = result.Value;
var p = P.P0 + t * (P.P1 - P.P0);
var q = Q.P0 + t * (Q.P1 - Q.P0);
// p and q are the same point of course
}
The extended line segments will generally intersect more than one box edge but only one of those intersections will be inside the box. You can check this easily.
bool IsInBox(Point corner0, Point corner1, Point test) =>
(test.X > corner0.X && test.X < corner1.X && test.Y > corner0.Y && test.Y < corner1.Y ;
That should give you all you need to extend you lines to the edge of your box.
I managed to figure this out.
I can extend my lines to the edge of the box by first finding the equations of my lines, then solving for the X and Y of each of the sides to get their corresponding point. This requires passing the max and min Y and the max and min X into the following functions, returning 4 values. If the point is outside the bounds of the box, it can be ignored.
My code is in C#, and is making extension methods for EMGU's LineSegment2D. This is a .NET wrapper for OpenCv.
My Code:
public static float GetYIntersection(this LineSegment2D line, float x)
{
Point p1 = line.P1;
Point p2 = line.P2;
float dx = p2.X - p1.X;
if(dx == 0)
{
return float.NaN;
}
float m = (p2.Y - p1.Y) / dx; //Slope
float b = p1.Y - (m * p1.X); //Y-Intercept
return m * x + b;
}
public static float GetXIntersection(this LineSegment2D line, float y)
{
Point p1 = line.P1;
Point p2 = line.P2;
float dx = p2.X - p1.X;
if (dx == 0)
{
return float.NaN;
}
float m = (p2.Y - p1.Y) / dx; //Slope
float b = p1.Y - (m * p1.X); //Y-Intercept
return (y - b) / m;
}
I can then take these points, check if they are in the bounds of the box, discard the ones that are not, remove duplicate points (line goes directly into corner). This will leave me with one x and one y value, which I can then pair to the corresponding min or max Y or X values I passed into the functions to make 2 points. I can then make my new segment with the two points.
Wiki description of Liang-Barsky algorithm is not bad, but code is flaw.
Note: this algorithm intended to throw out lines without intersection as soon as possible. If most of lines intersect the rectangle, then approach from your answer might be rather effective, otherwise L-B algorithm wins.
This page describes approach in details and contains concise effective code:
// Liang-Barsky function by Daniel White # http://www.skytopia.com/project/articles/compsci/clipping.html
// This function inputs 8 numbers, and outputs 4 new numbers (plus a boolean value to say whether the clipped line is drawn at all).
//
bool LiangBarsky (double edgeLeft, double edgeRight, double edgeBottom, double edgeTop, // Define the x/y clipping values for the border.
double x0src, double y0src, double x1src, double y1src, // Define the start and end points of the line.
double &x0clip, double &y0clip, double &x1clip, double &y1clip) // The output values, so declare these outside.
{
double t0 = 0.0; double t1 = 1.0;
double xdelta = x1src-x0src;
double ydelta = y1src-y0src;
double p,q,r;
for(int edge=0; edge<4; edge++) { // Traverse through left, right, bottom, top edges.
if (edge==0) { p = -xdelta; q = -(edgeLeft-x0src); }
if (edge==1) { p = xdelta; q = (edgeRight-x0src); }
if (edge==2) { p = -ydelta; q = -(edgeBottom-y0src);}
if (edge==3) { p = ydelta; q = (edgeTop-y0src); }
if(p==0 && q<0) return false; // Don't draw line at all. (parallel line outside)
r = q/p;
if(p<0) {
if(r>t1) return false; // Don't draw line at all.
else if(r>t0) t0=r; // Line is clipped!
} else if(p>0) {
if(r<t0) return false; // Don't draw line at all.
else if(r<t1) t1=r; // Line is clipped!
}
}
x0clip = x0src + t0*xdelta;
y0clip = y0src + t0*ydelta;
x1clip = x0src + t1*xdelta;
y1clip = y0src + t1*ydelta;
return true; // (clipped) line is drawn
}
Drawn a line from a point A to point B. Let d be offset. Let C be point to be tested.
I am going to do a kind of hit testing around the line with offset.
How can i do the hit testing around the line with the given offset.
Ex: A = (10,10), B (30,30), offset = 2. choose C as any point. Please Refer the image in the link please.
http://s10.postimg.org/6by2dzvax/reference.png
Please help me.
Thanks in advance.
Find offset for C.
e.g. dx1 and dy1. If dy1/dx1=dy/dx then your C hits the line.
For segment you should also check if whether dx1 < dx or dy1 < dy.
In other words, you want to check if that point C is inside a certain rectangle, with dimensions 2*d and |A-B|+2*d. You need to represent the line as u*x+v*y+w=0, this can be accomplished by
u = A.y-B.y
v = B.x-A.x
w = A.x*B.y - A.y * B.x
Then the (signed) distance of C from that line would be
d = (u*C.x + v*C.y +w) / sqrt( u*u+v*v)
You compare abs(d) to your offset.
The next step would be to check the position of C in the direction of the line. To that end you consider the orthogonal line u2*x+v2*y+w2=0 with
u2 = v
v2 = -u
w2 = -u2*(A.x+B.x)/2 - v2*(A.y+B.y)/2
and the distance
d2 = (u2 * C.x + v2 * C.y + w2 ) / sqrt( u2*u2+v2*v2 )
This distance must be compared to something like the length of the line+offset:
abs(d2) < |A-B| / 2 + offset
A convenient trick is to rotate and translate the plane in such a way that the segment AB maps to the segment (0, 0)-(0, L) (just like on the image), L being the segment length.
If you apply the same transform to C, then it a very simple matter to test inclusion in the rectangle.
That useful transform is given by:
x = ((X - XA).(XB - XA) + (Y - YA).(YB - YA)) / L
y = ((X - XA).(YB - YA) - (Y - YA).(XB - XA)) / L
maybe you can use this function to count the shortest distance of the point to the line. If the distance is <= offset, then that point is hitting the line.
private double pointDistanceToLine(PointF line1, PointF line2, PointF pt)
{
var isValid = false;
PointF r = new PointF();
if (line1.Y == line2.Y && line1.X == line2.X)
line1.Y -= 0.00001f;
double U = ((pt.Y - line1.Y ) * (line2.Y - line1.Y )) + ((pt.X - line1.X) * (line2.X - line1.X));
double Udenom = Math.Pow(line2.Y - line1.Y , 2) + Math.Pow(line2.X - line1.X, 2);
U /= Udenom;
r.Y = (float)(line1.Y + (U * (line2.Y - line1.Y ))); r.X = (float)(line1.X + (U * (line2.X - line1.X)));
double minX, maxX, minY , maxY ;
minX = Math.Min(line1.Y , line2.Y );
maxX = Math.Max(line1.Y , line2.Y );
minY = Math.Min(line1.X, line2.X);
maxY = Math.Max(line1.X, line2.X);
isValid = (r.Y >= minX && r.Y <= maxX) && (r.X >= minY && r.X <= maxY );
//return isValid ? r : null;
if (isValid)
{
double result = Math.Pow((pt.X - r.X), 2) + Math.Pow((pt.Y - r.Y), 2);
result = Math.Sqrt(result);
return result;
}
else {
double result1 = Math.Pow((pt.X - line1.X), 2) + Math.Pow((pt.Y - line1.Y), 2);
result1 = Math.Sqrt(result1);
double result2 = Math.Pow((pt.X - line2.X), 2) + Math.Pow((pt.Y - line2.Y), 2);
result2 = Math.Sqrt(result2);
return Math.Min(result1, result2);
}
}
I'd like to calculate a point on a quadratic curve. To use it with the canvas element of HTML5.
When I use the quadraticCurveTo() function in JavaScript, I have a source point, a target point and a control point.
How can I calculate a point on the created quadratic curve at let's say t=0.5 with "only" knowing this three points?
Use the quadratic Bézier formula, found, for instance, on the Wikipedia page for Bézier Curves:
In pseudo-code, that's
t = 0.5; // given example value
x = (1 - t) * (1 - t) * p[0].x + 2 * (1 - t) * t * p[1].x + t * t * p[2].x;
y = (1 - t) * (1 - t) * p[0].y + 2 * (1 - t) * t * p[1].y + t * t * p[2].y;
p[0] is the start point, p[1] is the control point, and p[2] is the end point. t is the parameter, which goes from 0 to 1.
In case somebody needs the cubic form:
//B(t) = (1-t)**3 p0 + 3(1 - t)**2 t P1 + 3(1-t)t**2 P2 + t**3 P3
x = (1-t)*(1-t)*(1-t)*p0x + 3*(1-t)*(1-t)*t*p1x + 3*(1-t)*t*t*p2x + t*t*t*p3x;
y = (1-t)*(1-t)*(1-t)*p0y + 3*(1-t)*(1-t)*t*p1y + 3*(1-t)*t*t*p2y + t*t*t*p3y;
I created this demo :
// x = a * (1-t)³ + b * 3 * (1-t)²t + c * 3 * (1-t)t² + d * t³
//------------------------------------------------------------
// x = a - 3at + 3at² - at³
// + 3bt - 6bt² + 3bt³
// + 3ct² - 3ct³
// + dt³
//--------------------------------
// x = - at³ + 3bt³ - 3ct³ + dt³
// + 3at² - 6bt² + 3ct²
// - 3at + 3bt
// + a
//--------------------------------
// 0 = t³ (-a+3b-3c+d) + => A
// t² (3a-6b+3c) + => B
// t (-3a+3b) + => c
// a - x => D
//--------------------------------
var A = d - 3*c + 3*b - a,
B = 3*c - 6*b + 3*a,
C = 3*b - 3*a,
D = a-x;
// So we need to solve At³ + Bt² + Ct + D = 0
Full example here
may help someone.
I edited talkhabis answer (cubic curve) so the curve is displayed with the right coordinates. (Couldn't comment)
The Y-coordinates needed to be changed (-p[].y+150). (A new variable for that might be a nicer and more efficient solution, but you get the idea)
// Apply points to SVG and create the curve and controllers :
var path = document.getElementById('path'),
ctrl1 = document.getElementById('ctrl1'),
ctrl2 = document.getElementById('ctrl2'),
D = 'M ' + p0.x + ' ' + (-p0.y+150) +
'C ' + c0.x + ' ' + (-c0.y+150) +', ' + c1.x + ' ' + (-c1.y+150) + ', ' + p1.x + ' ' + (-p1.y+150);
path.setAttribute('d',D);
ctrl1.setAttribute('d','M'+p0.x+','+(-p0.y+150)+'L'+c0.x+','+(-c0.y+150));
ctrl2.setAttribute('d','M'+p1.x+','+(-p1.y+150)+'L'+c1.x+','+(-c1.y+150));
// Lets test the "Bezier Function"
var t = 0, point = document.getElementById('point');
setInterval(function(){
var p = Bezier(p0,c0,c1,p1,t);
point.setAttribute('cx',p.x);
point.setAttribute('cy',-p.y+150);
t += 0.01;
if(t>=1) t=0;
},50);
// OK ... Now tring to get "y" on cruve based on mouse "x" :
var svg = document.getElementById('svg'),
point2 = document.getElementById('point2');
svg.onmousemove = function(e){
var x = (e.pageX - 50)/2,
y = (e.pageY - 50)/2;
// "-50" because of "50px margin" on the left side
// and "/2" because the svg width is 300 units and 600 px => 300 = 600/2
// Get the x,y by mouse x
var p = YBX(p0,c0,c1,p1,x);
point2.setAttribute('cx',p.x);
point2.setAttribute('cy',-p.y+150);
}
http://jsfiddle.net/u214gco8/1/
I also created some C-Code to test the results for the cubic curve. Just enter the X and Y coordinates in the main function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
void bezierCurve(int x[] , int y[])
{
double xu = 0.0 , yu = 0.0 , u = 0.0 ;
int i = 0 ;
for(u = 0.0 ; u <= 1.0 ; u += 0.05)
{
xu = pow(1-u,3)*x[0]+3*u*pow(1-u,2)*x[1]+3*pow(u,2)*(1-u)*x[2]
+pow(u,3)*x[3];
yu = pow(1-u,3)*y[0]+3*u*pow(1-u,2)*y[1]+3*pow(u,2)*(1-u)*y[2]
+pow(u,3)*y[3];
printf("X: %i Y: %i \n" , (int)xu , (int)yu) ;
}
}
int main(void) {
int x[] = {0,75,50,300};
int y[] = {0,2,140,100};
bezierCurve(x,y);
return 0;
}
https://ideone.com/glLXcB
Just a note: If you are using the usual formulas presented here then don't expect t = 0.5 to return the point at half of the curve's length.. In most cases it won't.
More on this here under "§23 — Tracing a curve at fixed distance intervals" and here.
To implement a 2D animation I am looking for interpolating values between two key frames with the velocity of change defined by a Bezier curve. The problem is Bezier curve is represented in parametric form whereas requirement is to be able to evaluate the value for a particular time.
To elaborate, lets say the value of 10 and 40 is to be interpolated across 4 seconds with the value changing not constantly but as defined by a bezier curve represented as 0,0 0.2,0.3 0.5,0.5 1,1.
Now if I am drawing at 24 frames per second, I need to evaluate the value for every frame. How can I do this ? I looked at De Casteljau algorithm and thought that dividing the curve into 24*4 pieces for 4 seconds would solve my problem but that sounds erroneous as time is along the "x" axis and not along the curve.
To further simplify
If I draw the curve in a plane, the x axis represents the time and the y axis the value I am looking for. What I actually require is to to be able to find out "y" corresponding to "x". Then I can divide x in 24 divisions and know the value for each frame
I was facing the same problem: Every animation package out there seems to use Bézier curves to control values over time, but there is no information out there on how to implement a Bézier curve as a y(x) function. So here is what I came up with.
A standard cubic Bézier curve in 2D space can be defined by the four points P0=(x0, y0) .. P3=(x3, y3).
P0 and P3 are the end points of the curve, while P1 and P2 are the handles affecting its shape. Using a parameter t ϵ [0, 1], the x and y coordinates for any given point along the curve can then be determined using the equations
A) x = (1-t)3x0 + 3t(1-t)2x1 + 3t2(1-t)x2 + t3x3 and
B) y = (1-t)3y0 + 3t(1-t)2y1 + 3t2(1-t)y2 + t3y3.
What we want is a function y(x) that, given an x coordinate, will return the corresponding y coordinate of the curve. For this to work, the curve must move monotonically from left to right, so that it doesn't occupy the same x coordinate more than once on different y positions. The easiest way to ensure this is to restrict the input points so that x0 < x3 and x1, x2 ϵ [x0, x3]. In other words, P0 must be to the left of P3 with the two handles between them.
In order to calculate y for a given x, we must first determine t from x. Getting y from t is then a simple matter of applying t to equation B.
I see two ways of determining t for a given y.
First, you might try a binary search for t. Start with a lower bound of 0 and an upper bound of 1 and calculate x for these values for t via equation A. Keep bisecting the interval until you get a reasonably close approximation. While this should work fine, it will neither be particularly fast nor very precise (at least not both at once).
The second approach is to actually solve equation A for t. That's a bit tough to implement because the equation is cubic. On the other hand, calculation becomes really fast and yields precise results.
Equation A can be rewritten as
(-x0+3x1-3x2+x3)t3 + (3x0-6x1+3x2)t2 + (-3x0+3x1)t + (x0-x) = 0.
Inserting your actual values for x0..x3, we get a cubic equation of the form at3 + bt2 + c*t + d = 0 for which we know there is only one solution within [0, 1]. We can now solve this equation using an algorithm like the one posted in this Stack Overflow answer.
The following is a little C# class demonstrating this approach. It should be simple enough to convert it to a language of your choice.
using System;
public class Point {
public Point(double x, double y) {
X = x;
Y = y;
}
public double X { get; private set; }
public double Y { get; private set; }
}
public class BezierCurve {
public BezierCurve(Point p0, Point p1, Point p2, Point p3) {
P0 = p0;
P1 = p1;
P2 = p2;
P3 = p3;
}
public Point P0 { get; private set; }
public Point P1 { get; private set; }
public Point P2 { get; private set; }
public Point P3 { get; private set; }
public double? GetY(double x) {
// Determine t
double t;
if (x == P0.X) {
// Handle corner cases explicitly to prevent rounding errors
t = 0;
} else if (x == P3.X) {
t = 1;
} else {
// Calculate t
double a = -P0.X + 3 * P1.X - 3 * P2.X + P3.X;
double b = 3 * P0.X - 6 * P1.X + 3 * P2.X;
double c = -3 * P0.X + 3 * P1.X;
double d = P0.X - x;
double? tTemp = SolveCubic(a, b, c, d);
if (tTemp == null) return null;
t = tTemp.Value;
}
// Calculate y from t
return Cubed(1 - t) * P0.Y
+ 3 * t * Squared(1 - t) * P1.Y
+ 3 * Squared(t) * (1 - t) * P2.Y
+ Cubed(t) * P3.Y;
}
// Solves the equation ax³+bx²+cx+d = 0 for x ϵ ℝ
// and returns the first result in [0, 1] or null.
private static double? SolveCubic(double a, double b, double c, double d) {
if (a == 0) return SolveQuadratic(b, c, d);
if (d == 0) return 0;
b /= a;
c /= a;
d /= a;
double q = (3.0 * c - Squared(b)) / 9.0;
double r = (-27.0 * d + b * (9.0 * c - 2.0 * Squared(b))) / 54.0;
double disc = Cubed(q) + Squared(r);
double term1 = b / 3.0;
if (disc > 0) {
double s = r + Math.Sqrt(disc);
s = (s < 0) ? -CubicRoot(-s) : CubicRoot(s);
double t = r - Math.Sqrt(disc);
t = (t < 0) ? -CubicRoot(-t) : CubicRoot(t);
double result = -term1 + s + t;
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
} else if (disc == 0) {
double r13 = (r < 0) ? -CubicRoot(-r) : CubicRoot(r);
double result = -term1 + 2.0 * r13;
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
result = -(r13 + term1);
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
} else {
q = -q;
double dum1 = q * q * q;
dum1 = Math.Acos(r / Math.Sqrt(dum1));
double r13 = 2.0 * Math.Sqrt(q);
double result = -term1 + r13 * Math.Cos(dum1 / 3.0);
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
result = -term1 + r13 * Math.Cos((dum1 + 2.0 * Math.PI) / 3.0);
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
result = -term1 + r13 * Math.Cos((dum1 + 4.0 * Math.PI) / 3.0);
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
}
return null;
}
// Solves the equation ax² + bx + c = 0 for x ϵ ℝ
// and returns the first result in [0, 1] or null.
private static double? SolveQuadratic(double a, double b, double c) {
double result = (-b + Math.Sqrt(Squared(b) - 4 * a * c)) / (2 * a);
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
result = (-b - Math.Sqrt(Squared(b) - 4 * a * c)) / (2 * a);
if (result >= 0 && result <= 1) return result;
return null;
}
private static double Squared(double f) { return f * f; }
private static double Cubed(double f) { return f * f * f; }
private static double CubicRoot(double f) { return Math.Pow(f, 1.0 / 3.0); }
}
You have a few options:
Let's say your curve function F(t) takes a parameter t that ranges from 0 to 1 where F(0) is the beginning of the curve and F(1) is the end of the curve.
You could animate motion along the curve by incrementing t at a constant change per unit of time.
So t is defined by function T(time) = Constant*time
For example, if your frame is 1/24th of a second, and you want to move along the curve at a rate of 0.1 units of t per second, then each frame you increment t by 0.1 (t/s) * 1/24 (sec/frame).
A drawback here is that your actual speed or distance traveled per unit time will not be constant. It will depends on the positions of your control points.
If you want to scale speed along the curve uniformly you can modify the constant change in t per unit time. However, if you want speeds to vary dramatically you will find it difficult to control the shape of the curve. If you want the velocity at one endpoint to be much larger, you must move the control point further away, which in turn pulls the shape of the curve towards that point. If this is a problem, you may consider using a non constant function for t. There are a variety of approaches with different trade-offs, and we need to know more details about your problem to suggest a solution. For example, in the past I have allowed users to define the speed at each keyframe and used a lookup table to translate from time to parameter t such that there is a linear change in speed between keyframe speeds (it's complicated).
Another common hangup: If you are animating by connecting several Bezier curves, and you want the velocity to be continuous when moving between curves, then you will need to constrain your control points so they are symmetrical with the adjacent curve. Catmull-Rom splines are a common approach.
I've answered a similar question here. Basically if you know the control points before hand then you can transform the f(t) function into a y(x) function. To not have to do it all by hand you can use services like Wolfram Alpha to help you with the math.
There is a special way of mapping a cube to a sphere described here:
http://mathproofs.blogspot.com/2005/07/mapping-cube-to-sphere.html
It is not your basic "normalize the point and you're done" approach and gives a much more evenly spaced mapping.
I've tried to do the inverse of the mapping going from sphere coords to cube coords and have been unable to come up the working equations. It's a rather complex system of equations with lots of square roots.
Any math geniuses want to take a crack at it?
Here's the equations in c++ code:
sx = x * sqrtf(1.0f - y * y * 0.5f - z * z * 0.5f + y * y * z * z / 3.0f);
sy = y * sqrtf(1.0f - z * z * 0.5f - x * x * 0.5f + z * z * x * x / 3.0f);
sz = z * sqrtf(1.0f - x * x * 0.5f - y * y * 0.5f + x * x * y * y / 3.0f);
sx,sy,sz are the sphere coords and x,y,z are the cube coords.
I want to give gmatt credit for this because he's done a lot of the work. The only difference in our answers is the equation for x.
To do the inverse mapping from sphere to cube first determine the cube face the sphere point projects to. This step is simple - just find the component of the sphere vector with the greatest length like so:
// map the given unit sphere position to a unit cube position
void cubizePoint(Vector3& position) {
double x,y,z;
x = position.x;
y = position.y;
z = position.z;
double fx, fy, fz;
fx = fabsf(x);
fy = fabsf(y);
fz = fabsf(z);
if (fy >= fx && fy >= fz) {
if (y > 0) {
// top face
position.y = 1.0;
}
else {
// bottom face
position.y = -1.0;
}
}
else if (fx >= fy && fx >= fz) {
if (x > 0) {
// right face
position.x = 1.0;
}
else {
// left face
position.x = -1.0;
}
}
else {
if (z > 0) {
// front face
position.z = 1.0;
}
else {
// back face
position.z = -1.0;
}
}
}
For each face - take the remaining cube vector components denoted as s and t and solve for them using these equations, which are based on the remaining sphere vector components denoted as a and b:
s = sqrt(-sqrt((2 a^2-2 b^2-3)^2-24 a^2)+2 a^2-2 b^2+3)/sqrt(2)
t = sqrt(-sqrt((2 a^2-2 b^2-3)^2-24 a^2)-2 a^2+2 b^2+3)/sqrt(2)
You should see that the inner square root is used in both equations so only do that part once.
Here's the final function with the equations thrown in and checks for 0.0 and -0.0 and the code to properly set the sign of the cube component - it should be equal to the sign of the sphere component.
void cubizePoint2(Vector3& position)
{
double x,y,z;
x = position.x;
y = position.y;
z = position.z;
double fx, fy, fz;
fx = fabsf(x);
fy = fabsf(y);
fz = fabsf(z);
const double inverseSqrt2 = 0.70710676908493042;
if (fy >= fx && fy >= fz) {
double a2 = x * x * 2.0;
double b2 = z * z * 2.0;
double inner = -a2 + b2 -3;
double innersqrt = -sqrtf((inner * inner) - 12.0 * a2);
if(x == 0.0 || x == -0.0) {
position.x = 0.0;
}
else {
position.x = sqrtf(innersqrt + a2 - b2 + 3.0) * inverseSqrt2;
}
if(z == 0.0 || z == -0.0) {
position.z = 0.0;
}
else {
position.z = sqrtf(innersqrt - a2 + b2 + 3.0) * inverseSqrt2;
}
if(position.x > 1.0) position.x = 1.0;
if(position.z > 1.0) position.z = 1.0;
if(x < 0) position.x = -position.x;
if(z < 0) position.z = -position.z;
if (y > 0) {
// top face
position.y = 1.0;
}
else {
// bottom face
position.y = -1.0;
}
}
else if (fx >= fy && fx >= fz) {
double a2 = y * y * 2.0;
double b2 = z * z * 2.0;
double inner = -a2 + b2 -3;
double innersqrt = -sqrtf((inner * inner) - 12.0 * a2);
if(y == 0.0 || y == -0.0) {
position.y = 0.0;
}
else {
position.y = sqrtf(innersqrt + a2 - b2 + 3.0) * inverseSqrt2;
}
if(z == 0.0 || z == -0.0) {
position.z = 0.0;
}
else {
position.z = sqrtf(innersqrt - a2 + b2 + 3.0) * inverseSqrt2;
}
if(position.y > 1.0) position.y = 1.0;
if(position.z > 1.0) position.z = 1.0;
if(y < 0) position.y = -position.y;
if(z < 0) position.z = -position.z;
if (x > 0) {
// right face
position.x = 1.0;
}
else {
// left face
position.x = -1.0;
}
}
else {
double a2 = x * x * 2.0;
double b2 = y * y * 2.0;
double inner = -a2 + b2 -3;
double innersqrt = -sqrtf((inner * inner) - 12.0 * a2);
if(x == 0.0 || x == -0.0) {
position.x = 0.0;
}
else {
position.x = sqrtf(innersqrt + a2 - b2 + 3.0) * inverseSqrt2;
}
if(y == 0.0 || y == -0.0) {
position.y = 0.0;
}
else {
position.y = sqrtf(innersqrt - a2 + b2 + 3.0) * inverseSqrt2;
}
if(position.x > 1.0) position.x = 1.0;
if(position.y > 1.0) position.y = 1.0;
if(x < 0) position.x = -position.x;
if(y < 0) position.y = -position.y;
if (z > 0) {
// front face
position.z = 1.0;
}
else {
// back face
position.z = -1.0;
}
}
So, this solution isn't nearly as pretty as the cube to sphere mapping, but it gets the job done!
Any suggestions to improve the efficiency or read ability of the code above are appreciated!
--- edit ---
I should mention that I have tested this and so far in my tests the code appears correct with the results being accurate to at least the 7th decimal place. And that was from when I was using floats, it's probably more accurate now with doubles.
--- edit ---
Here's an optimized glsl fragment shader version by Daniel to show that it doesn't have to be such a big scary function. Daniel uses this to filter sampling on cube maps! Great idea!
const float isqrt2 = 0.70710676908493042;
vec3 cubify(const in vec3 s)
{
float xx2 = s.x * s.x * 2.0;
float yy2 = s.y * s.y * 2.0;
vec2 v = vec2(xx2 – yy2, yy2 – xx2);
float ii = v.y – 3.0;
ii *= ii;
float isqrt = -sqrt(ii – 12.0 * xx2) + 3.0;
v = sqrt(v + isqrt);
v *= isqrt2;
return sign(s) * vec3(v, 1.0);
}
vec3 sphere2cube(const in vec3 sphere)
{
vec3 f = abs(sphere);
bool a = f.y >= f.x && f.y >= f.z;
bool b = f.x >= f.z;
return a ? cubify(sphere.xzy).xzy : b ? cubify(sphere.yzx).zxy : cubify(sphere);
}
After some rearranging you can get the "nice" forms
(1) 1/2 z^2 = (alpha) / ( y^2 - x^2) + 1
(2) 1/2 y^2 = (beta) / ( z^2 - x^2) + 1
(3) 1/2 x^2 = (gamma) / ( y^2 - z^2) + 1
where alpha = sx^2-sy^2 , beta = sx^2 - sz^2 and gamma = sz^2 - sy^2. Verify this yourself.
Now I neither have the motivation nor the time but from this point on its pretty straightforward to solve:
Substitute (1) into (2). Rearrange (2) until you get a polynomial (root) equation of the form
(4) a(x) * y^4 + b(x) * y^2 + c(x) = 0
this can be solved using the quadratic formula for y^2. Note that a(x),b(x),c(x) are some functions of x. The quadratic formula yields 2 roots for (4) which you will have to keep in mind.
Using (1),(2),(4) figure out an expression for z^2 in terms of only x^2.
Using (3) write out a polynomial root equation of the form:
(5) a * x^4 + b * x^2 + c = 0
where a,b,c are not functions but constants. Solve this using the quadratic formula. In total you will have 2*2=4 possible solutions for x^2,y^2,z^2 pair meaning you will
have 4*2=8 total solutions for possible x,y,z pairs satisfying these equations. Check conditions on each x,y,z pair and (hopefully) eliminate all but one (otherwise an inverse mapping does not exist.)
Good luck.
PS. It very well may be that the inverse mapping does not exist, think about the geometry: the sphere has surface area 4*pi*r^2 while the cube has surface area 6*d^2=6*(2r)^2=24r^2 so intuitively you have many more points on the cube that get mapped to the sphere. This means a many to one mapping, and any such mapping is not injective and hence is not bijective (i.e. the mapping has no inverse.) Sorry but I think you are out of luck.
----- edit --------------
if you follow the advice from MO, setting z=1 means you are looking at the solid square in the plane z=1.
Use your first two equations to solve for x,y, wolfram alpha gives the result:
x = (sqrt(6) s^2 sqrt(1/2 (sqrt((2 s^2-2 t^2-3)^2-24 t^2)+2 s^2-2 t^2-3)+3)-sqrt(6) t^2 sqrt(1/2 (sqrt((2 s^2-2 t^2-3)^2-24 t^2)+2 s^2-2 t^2-3)+3)-sqrt(3/2) sqrt((2 s^2-2 t^2-3)^2-24 t^2) sqrt(1/2 (sqrt((2 s^2-2 t^2-3)^2-24 t^2)+2 s^2-2 t^2-3)+3)+3 sqrt(3/2) sqrt(1/2 (sqrt((2 s^2-2 t^2-3)^2-24 t^2)+2 s^2-2 t^2-3)+3))/(6 s)
and
y = sqrt(-sqrt((2 s^2-2 t^2-3)^2-24 t^2)-2 s^2+2 t^2+3)/sqrt(2)
where above I use s=sx and t=sy, and I will use u=sz. Then you can use the third equation you have for u=sz. That is lets say that you want to map the top part of the sphere to the cube. Then for any 0 <= s,t <= 1 (where s,t are in the sphere's coordinate frame ) then the tuple (s,t,u) maps to (x,y,1) (here x,y are in the cubes coordinate frame.) The only thing left is for you to figure out what u is. You can figure this out by using s,t to solve for x,y then using x,y to solve for u.
Note that this will only map the top part of the cube to only the top plane of the cube z=1. You will have to do this for all 6 sides (x=1, y=1, z=0 ... etc ). I suggest using wolfram alpha to solve the resulting equations you get for each sub-case, because they will be as ugly or uglier as those above.
This answer contains the cube2sphere and sphere2cube without the restriction of a = 1. So the cube has side 2a from -a to a and the radius of the sphere is a.
I know it's been 10 years since this question was asked. Nevertheless, I am giving the answer in case someone needs it. The implementation is in Python,
I am using (x, y, z) for the cube coordinates, (p, q, r) for the sphere coordinates and the relevant underscore variables (x_, y_, z_) meaning they have been produced by using the inverse function.
import math
from random import randint # for testing
def sign_aux(x):
return lambda y: math.copysign(x, y)
sign = sign_aux(1) # no built-in sign function in python, I know...
def cube2sphere(x, y, z):
if (all([x == 0, y == 0, z == 0])):
return 0, 0, 0
def aux(x, y_2, z_2, a, a_2):
return x * math.sqrt(a_2 - y_2/2 - z_2/2 + y_2*z_2/(3*a_2))/a
x_2 = x*x
y_2 = y*y
z_2 = z*z
a = max(abs(x), abs(y), abs(z))
a_2 = a*a
return aux(x, y_2, z_2, a, a_2), aux(y, x_2, z_2, a, a_2), aux(z, x_2, y_2, a, a_2)
def sphere2cube(p, q, r):
if (all([p == 0, q == 0, r == 0])):
return 0, 0, 0
def aux(s, t, radius):
A = 3*radius*radius
R = 2*(s*s - t*t)
S = math.sqrt( max(0, (A+R)*(A+R) - 8*A*s*s) ) # use max 0 for accuraccy error
iot = math.sqrt(2)/2
s_ = sign(s) * iot * math.sqrt(max(0, A + R - S)) # use max 0 for accuraccy error
t_ = sign(t) * iot * math.sqrt(max(0, A - R - S)) # use max 0 for accuraccy error
return s_, t_
norm_p, norm_q, norm_r = abs(p), abs(q), abs(r)
norm_max = max(norm_p, norm_q, norm_r)
radius = math.sqrt(p*p + q*q + r*r)
if (norm_max == norm_p):
y, z = aux(q, r, radius)
x = sign(p) * radius
return x, y, z
if (norm_max == norm_q):
z, x = aux(r, p, radius)
y = sign(q) * radius
return x, y, z
x, y = aux(p, q, radius)
z = sign(r) * radius
return x, y, z
# measuring accuracy
max_mse = 0
for i in range(100000):
x = randint(-20, 20)
y = randint(-20, 20)
z = randint(-20, 20)
p, q, r = cube2sphere(x, y, z)
x_, y_, z_ = sphere2cube(p, q, r)
max_mse = max(max_mse, math.sqrt(((x-x_)**2 + (y-y_)**2 + (z-z_)**2))/3)
print(max_mse)
# 1.1239159602905078e-07
max_mse = 0
for i in range(100000):
p = randint(-20, 20)
q = randint(-20, 20)
r = randint(-20, 20)
x, y, z = sphere2cube(p, q, r)
p_, q_, r_ = cube2sphere(x, y, z)
max_mse = max(max_mse, math.sqrt(((p-p_)**2 + (q-q_)**2 + (r-r_)**2))/3)
print(max_mse)
# 9.832883321715792e-08
Also, I mapped some points to check the function visually and these are the results.
Here's one way you can think about it: for a given point P in the sphere, take the segment that starts at the origin, passes through P, and ends at the surface of the cube. Let L be the length of this segment. Now all you need to do is multiply P by L; this is equivalent to mapping ||P|| from the interval [0, 1] to the interval [0, L]. This mapping should be one-to-one - every point in the sphere goes to a unique point in the cube (and points on the surface stay on the surface). Note that this is assuming a unit sphere and cube; the idea should hold elsewhere, you'll just have a few scale factors involved.
I've glossed over the hard part (finding the segment), but this is a standard raycasting problem. There are some links here that explain how to compute this for an arbitrary ray versus axis-aligned bounding box; you can probably simplify things since your ray starts at the origin and goes to the unit cube. If you need help simplify the equations, let me know and I'll take a stab at it.
It looks like there is a much cleaner solution if you're not afraid of trig and pi, not sure if it's faster/comparable though.
Just take the remaining components after determining the face and do:
u = asin ( x ) / half_pi
v = asin ( y ) / half_pi
This is an intuitive leap, but this seems to back it up ( though not exactly the same topic ), so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm too lazy to post an illustration that explains why. :D