I am coding a simulation of ball movement. I have an updateBall function which runs every 100 miliseconds to update the location of the ball.
How could i find out the minimum velocity needed to reach a given target coordinate?
Below is the relevant code,
ball.x = 0;
ball.y = 0;
targetX = 100;
targetY = 200;
friction = 0.03;
dx = targetX - ball.x;
dy = targetY - ball.y;
distance = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
velocity = ?;
// runs every 100ms
updateBall()
{
ball.x += velocity;
ball.y += velocity;
velocity -= friction;
}
It seems wrong that you apply friction to both components separately - in this case ball can stop vertically but move horizontally - looks strange, doesn't it?
Is is worth to apply acceleration to velocity vector. Seems you have straight moving - so you can precalculate coeffients for both components.
Concerning needed velocity:
distance = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy)
v_final = v0 - a * t = 0 so t = v0 / a
distance = v0 * t - a * t^2 / 2 substitute t and get
distance = v0^2 / (2a)
and finally initial velocity to provide moving at distance
v0 = sqrt(2*distance*a)
where a is acceleration proportional to your friction accordingly to elementary interval dt (100 ms ).
friction = a * dt
a = friction / dt
v0.x = v0 * dx / distance = v0 * coefX
v0.y = v0 * dy / distance = v0 * coefY
at every stage you update v value and get components
v = v - friction
v.x = v * coefX
v.y = v * coefY
So I have the following code that works fine
I've taken it from https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/192477/circle-line-segment-collision
I am now trying to figure out where along this function I can determine the angle in which the circle is hitting the line. Instead of returning true I'd like it to return the angle, since I didn't write the function myself going through it to try and figure this out myself has been a bit of a struggle. Wondering if someone excellent at math can help me figure this out at first glance. Thank you!
// Function to check intercept of line seg and circle
// A,B end points of line segment
// C center of circle
// radius of circle
// returns true if touching or crossing else false
function doesLineInterceptCircle(A, B, C, radius) {
var dist;
const v1x = B.x - A.x;
const v1y = B.y - A.y;
const v2x = C.x - A.x;
const v2y = C.y - A.y;
// get the unit distance along the line of the closest point to
// circle center
const u = (v2x * v1x + v2y * v1y) / (v1y * v1y + v1x * v1x);
// if the point is on the line segment get the distance squared
// from that point to the circle center
if(u >= 0 && u <= 1){
dist = (A.x + v1x * u - C.x) ** 2 + (A.y + v1y * u - C.y) ** 2;
} else {
// if closest point not on the line segment
// use the unit distance to determine which end is closest
// and get dist square to circle
dist = u < 0 ?
(A.x - C.x) ** 2 + (A.y - C.y) ** 2 :
(B.x - C.x) ** 2 + (B.y - C.y) ** 2;
}
return dist < radius * radius;
}
I have 4 columns in my data frame lat1,long1...lat2,long2. I need to calculate distance between these pairs. I am trying to use Distm function.
When I try to use distm (c(mydata2$lst_upd_longitude,mydata2$lst_upd_latitude), c(mydata2$long,mydata2$lat), fun = distHaversine)
R throws up an error "Error in .pointsToMatrix(x) : Wrong length for a vector, should be 2"
For now I am using the below code to calculate distance for every point. But I am sure there should be a better solution. Also this code consumes lot of time.
for( i in 1:nrow(mydata2)){
mydata2$distance[i] <- distm (c(mydata2$lst_upd_longitude[i],mydata2$lst_upd_latitude[i]),
c( mydata2$long[i],mydata2$lat[i]),
fun = distHaversine)}
Try
df <- read.table(sep=",", col.names=c("lat1", "lon1", "lat2", "lon2"), text="
52,4,52,13
39,116,52,13")
library(geosphere)
distHaversine(df[, 2:1], df[, 4:3]) / 1000 # Haversine distance in km
Please try the below Script Code:
function getDistanceFromLatLonInKm(lat1,lon1,lat2,lon2) {
var R = 6371; // Radius of the earth in km
var dLat = deg2rad(lat2-lat1); // deg2rad below
var dLon = deg2rad(lon2-lon1);
var a =
Math.sin(dLat/2) * Math.sin(dLat/2) +
Math.cos(deg2rad(lat1)) * Math.cos(deg2rad(lat2)) *
Math.sin(dLon/2) * Math.sin(dLon/2)
;
var c = 2 * Math.atan2(Math.sqrt(a), Math.sqrt(1-a));
var d = R * c; // Distance in km
return d;
}
function deg2rad(deg) {
return deg * (Math.PI/180)
}
For more details follow the below link:
Calculate distance between two latitude-longitude points? (Haversine formula)
If I want to generate a bunch of points distributed uniformly around a circle, I can do this (python):
r = 5 #radius
n = 20 #points to generate
circlePoints = [
(r * math.cos(theta), r * math.sin(theta))
for theta in (math.pi*2 * i/n for i in range(n))
]
However, the same logic doesn't generate uniform points on an ellipse: points on the "ends" are more closely spaced than points on the "sides".
r1 = 5
r2 = 10
n = 20 #points to generate
ellipsePoints = [
(r1 * math.cos(theta), r2 * math.sin(theta))
for theta in (math.pi*2 * i/n for i in range(n))
]
Is there an easy way to generate equally spaced points around an ellipse?
This is an old thread, but since I am seeking the same task of creating evenly spaced points along and ellipse and was not able to find an implementation, I offer this Java code that implements the pseudo code of Howard:
package com.math;
public class CalculatePoints {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
/*
*
dp(t) = sqrt( (r1*sin(t))^2 + (r2*cos(t))^2)
circ = sum(dp(t), t=0..2*Pi step 0.0001)
n = 20
nextPoint = 0
run = 0.0
for t=0..2*Pi step 0.0001
if n*run/circ >= nextPoint then
set point (r1*cos(t), r2*sin(t))
nextPoint = nextPoint + 1
next
run = run + dp(t)
next
*/
double r1 = 20.0;
double r2 = 10.0;
double theta = 0.0;
double twoPi = Math.PI*2.0;
double deltaTheta = 0.0001;
double numIntegrals = Math.round(twoPi/deltaTheta);
double circ=0.0;
double dpt=0.0;
/* integrate over the elipse to get the circumference */
for( int i=0; i < numIntegrals; i++ ) {
theta += i*deltaTheta;
dpt = computeDpt( r1, r2, theta);
circ += dpt;
}
System.out.println( "circumference = " + circ );
int n=20;
int nextPoint = 0;
double run = 0.0;
theta = 0.0;
for( int i=0; i < numIntegrals; i++ ) {
theta += deltaTheta;
double subIntegral = n*run/circ;
if( (int) subIntegral >= nextPoint ) {
double x = r1 * Math.cos(theta);
double y = r2 * Math.sin(theta);
System.out.println( "x=" + Math.round(x) + ", y=" + Math.round(y));
nextPoint++;
}
run += computeDpt(r1, r2, theta);
}
}
static double computeDpt( double r1, double r2, double theta ) {
double dp=0.0;
double dpt_sin = Math.pow(r1*Math.sin(theta), 2.0);
double dpt_cos = Math.pow( r2*Math.cos(theta), 2.0);
dp = Math.sqrt(dpt_sin + dpt_cos);
return dp;
}
}
(UPDATED: to reflect new packaging).
An efficient solution of this problem for Python can be found in the numeric branch FlyingCircus-Numeric, derivated from the FlyingCircus Python package.
Disclaimer: I am the main author of them.
Briefly, the (simplified) code looks (where a is the minor axis, and b is the major axis):
import numpy as np
import scipy as sp
import scipy.optimize
def angles_in_ellipse(
num,
a,
b):
assert(num > 0)
assert(a < b)
angles = 2 * np.pi * np.arange(num) / num
if a != b:
e2 = (1.0 - a ** 2.0 / b ** 2.0)
tot_size = sp.special.ellipeinc(2.0 * np.pi, e2)
arc_size = tot_size / num
arcs = np.arange(num) * arc_size
res = sp.optimize.root(
lambda x: (sp.special.ellipeinc(x, e2) - arcs), angles)
angles = res.x
return angles
It makes use of scipy.special.ellipeinc() which provides the numerical integral along the perimeter of the ellipse, and scipy.optimize.root()
for solving the equal-arcs length equation for the angles.
To test that it is actually working:
a = 10
b = 20
n = 16
phi = angles_in_ellipse(n, a, b)
print(np.round(np.rad2deg(phi), 2))
# [ 0. 17.55 36.47 59.13 90. 120.87 143.53 162.45 180. 197.55
# 216.47 239.13 270. 300.87 323.53 342.45]
e = (1.0 - a ** 2.0 / b ** 2.0) ** 0.5
arcs = sp.special.ellipeinc(phi, e)
print(np.round(np.diff(arcs), 4))
# [0.3022 0.2982 0.2855 0.2455 0.2455 0.2855 0.2982 0.3022 0.3022 0.2982
# 0.2855 0.2455 0.2455 0.2855 0.2982]
# plotting
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.gca()
ax.axes.set_aspect('equal')
ax.scatter(b * np.sin(phi), a * np.cos(phi))
plt.show()
You have to calculate the perimeter, then divide it into equal length arcs. The length of an arc of an ellipse is an elliptic integral and cannot be written in closed form so you need numerical computation.
The article on ellipses on wolfram gives you the formula needed to do this, but this is going to be ugly.
A possible (numerical) calculation can look as follows:
dp(t) = sqrt( (r1*sin(t))^2 + (r2*cos(t))^2)
circ = sum(dp(t), t=0..2*Pi step 0.0001)
n = 20
nextPoint = 0
run = 0.0
for t=0..2*Pi step 0.0001
if n*run/circ >= nextPoint then
set point (r1*cos(t), r2*sin(t))
nextPoint = nextPoint + 1
next
run = run + dp(t)
next
This is a simple numerical integration scheme. If you need better accuracy you might also use any other integration method.
I'm sure this thread is long dead by now, but I just came across this issue and this was the closest that came to a solution.
I started with Dave's answer here, but I noticed that it wasn't really answering the poster's question. It wasn't dividing the ellipse equally by arc lengths, but by angle.
Anyway, I made some adjustments to his (awesome) work to get the ellipse to divide equally by arc length instead (written in C# this time). If you look at the code, you'll see some of the same stuff -
void main()
{
List<Point> pointsInEllipse = new List<Point>();
// Distance in radians between angles measured on the ellipse
double deltaAngle = 0.001;
double circumference = GetLengthOfEllipse(deltaAngle);
double arcLength = 0.1;
double angle = 0;
// Loop until we get all the points out of the ellipse
for (int numPoints = 0; numPoints < circumference / arcLength; numPoints++)
{
angle = GetAngleForArcLengthRecursively(0, arcLength, angle, deltaAngle);
double x = r1 * Math.Cos(angle);
double y = r2 * Math.Sin(angle);
pointsInEllipse.Add(new Point(x, y));
}
}
private double GetLengthOfEllipse()
{
// Distance in radians between angles
double deltaAngle = 0.001;
double numIntegrals = Math.Round(Math.PI * 2.0 / deltaAngle);
double radiusX = (rectangleRight - rectangleLeft) / 2;
double radiusY = (rectangleBottom - rectangleTop) / 2;
// integrate over the elipse to get the circumference
for (int i = 0; i < numIntegrals; i++)
{
length += ComputeArcOverAngle(radiusX, radiusY, i * deltaAngle, deltaAngle);
}
return length;
}
private double GetAngleForArcLengthRecursively(double currentArcPos, double goalArcPos, double angle, double angleSeg)
{
// Calculate arc length at new angle
double nextSegLength = ComputeArcOverAngle(majorRadius, minorRadius, angle + angleSeg, angleSeg);
// If we've overshot, reduce the delta angle and try again
if (currentArcPos + nextSegLength > goalArcPos) {
return GetAngleForArcLengthRecursively(currentArcPos, goalArcPos, angle, angleSeg / 2);
// We're below the our goal value but not in range (
} else if (currentArcPos + nextSegLength < goalArcPos - ((goalArcPos - currentArcPos) * ARC_ACCURACY)) {
return GetAngleForArcLengthRecursively(currentArcPos + nextSegLength, goalArcPos, angle + angleSeg, angleSeg);
// current arc length is in range (within error), so return the angle
} else
return angle;
}
private double ComputeArcOverAngle(double r1, double r2, double angle, double angleSeg)
{
double distance = 0.0;
double dpt_sin = Math.Pow(r1 * Math.Sin(angle), 2.0);
double dpt_cos = Math.Pow(r2 * Math.Cos(angle), 2.0);
distance = Math.Sqrt(dpt_sin + dpt_cos);
// Scale the value of distance
return distance * angleSeg;
}
From my answer in BSE here .
I add it in stackoverflow as it is a different approach which does not rely on a fixed iteration steps but rely on a convergence of the distances between the points, to the mean distance.
So the calculation is shorter as it depends only on the wanted vertices amount and on the precision to reach (about 6 iterations for less than 0.01%).
The principle is :
0/ First step : calculate the points normally using a * cos(t) and b * sin(t)
1/ Calculate the lengths between vertices
2/ Adjust the angles variations depending on the gap between each distance to the mean distance
3/ Reposition the points
4/ Exit when the wanted precision is reached or return to 1/
import bpy, bmesh
from math import radians, sqrt, cos, sin
rad90 = radians( 90.0 )
rad180 = radians( 180.0 )
def createVertex( bm, x, y ): #uses bmesh to create a vertex
return bm.verts.new( [x, y, 0] )
def listSum( list, index ): #helper to sum on a list
sum = 0
for i in list:
sum = sum + i[index]
return sum
def calcLength( points ): #calculate the lenghts for consecutives points
prevPoint = points[0]
for point in points :
dx = point[0] - prevPoint[0]
dy = point[1] - prevPoint[1]
dist = sqrt( dx * dx + dy *dy )
point[3] = dist
prevPoint = point
def calcPos( points, a, b ): #calculate the positions following the angles
angle = 0
for i in range( 1, len(points) - 1 ):
point = points[i]
angle += point[2]
point[0] = a * cos( angle )
point[1] = b * sin( angle )
def adjust( points ): #adjust the angle by comparing each length to the mean length
totalLength = listSum( points, 3 )
averageLength = totalLength / (len(points) - 1)
maxRatio = 0
for i in range( 1, len(points) ):
point = points[i]
ratio = (averageLength - point[3]) / averageLength
point[2] = (1.0 + ratio) * point[2]
absRatio = abs( ratio )
if absRatio > maxRatio:
maxRatio = absRatio
return maxRatio
def ellipse( bm, a, b, steps, limit ):
delta = rad90 / steps
angle = 0.0
points = [] #will be a list of [ [x, y, angle, length], ...]
for step in range( steps + 1 ) :
x = a * cos( angle )
y = b * sin( angle )
points.append( [x, y, delta, 0.0] )
angle += delta
print( 'start' )
doContinue = True
while doContinue:
calcLength( points )
maxRatio = adjust( points )
calcPos( points, a, b )
doContinue = maxRatio > limit
print( maxRatio )
verts = []
for point in points:
verts.append( createVertex( bm, point[0], point[1] ) )
for i in range( 1, len(verts) ):
bm.edges.new( [verts[i - 1], verts[i]] )
A = 4
B = 6
bm = bmesh.new()
ellipse( bm, A, B, 32, 0.00001 )
mesh = bpy.context.object.data
bm.to_mesh(mesh)
mesh.update()
Do take into consideration the formula for ellipse perimeter as under if the ellipse is squashed. (If the minor axis is three times as small as the major axis)
tot_size = np.pi*(3*(a+b) -np.sqrt((3*a+b)*a+3*b))
Ellipse Perimeter
There is working MATLAB code available here. I replicate that below in case that link ever goes dead. Credits are due to the original author.
This code assumes that the major axis is a line segment from (x1, y1) to (x2, y2) and e is the eccentricity of the ellipse.
a = 1/2*sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2);
b = a*sqrt(1-e^2);
t = linspace(0,2*pi, 20);
X = a*cos(t);
Y = b*sin(t);
w = atan2(y2-y1,x2-x1);
x = (x1+x2)/2 + X*cos(w) - Y*sin(w);
y = (y1+y2)/2 + X*sin(w) + Y*cos(w);
plot(x,y,'o')
axis equal
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.