I want to test if a rotated rectangle intersects my camera's view frustrum (an axis aligned rectangle).
I was hoping there'd be a solution for this provided in Graphics Gems, but don't see one. This one looks close: http://www.ragestorm.net/tutorial?id=22 but the comments suggest that it does not work as published.
This question seems to have been asked a few times on SO over the years, but don't see a working example. Anyone have any pointers to anything? Maybe there's a static method I could lift from Box2d since certainly a test like this must be used somewhere in that code?
Thank you
You're on the right track - box2d does have a method for this...
in b2CollidePolygon.cpp, there is the following method:
void b2CollidePolygons(b2Manifold* manifold,
const b2PolygonShape* polyA, const b2Transform& xfA,
const b2PolygonShape* polyB, const b2Transform& xfB)
As you can see, the results of the test is returned by b2Manifold. The input to the test are two shapes (one would be the fixture for your body, the other would be your view), and the transformations for those shapes, which you can get from calling the GetTransform method of b2Body.
Related
I am not sure how to put this problem in a single sentence, sorry if the title is misleading.
I am currently developing a simple terrain editor with a circle-shaped brush size. The image below shows a few cases that represent my problem.
additional info: the square size is fixed and uniform and in the current version, my concern is only to find which one is hit and which one is not (the amount of region covered is important for weighting the hit, but probably not right now)
My current solution (which is not even correct for a certain condition) is: given a hit in a position (x, y) with radius r, loop through all square from (x-radius, y-radius) to (x+radius, y+radius) and apply 2-D box to circle collision detection. But I don't think this is optimal (or even correct IMO).
Can anyone help me with this one? Thank you
Since i can't add a simple comment due to bureaucracy on this website i have to type it out here.
Anyway you're in luck since i was trying to do this recently as well! The way i did it is i iterated through the vertex array and check if the current vertex falls inside the radius of the circle. But perhaps what you want is to check it against each quad center and if that center falls inside the radius then add the whole quad as it's being collided.
Of course depending on the size of your grid the performance will vary so it's good to try to iterate through as few quads as needed. Though accessing these quads from the array is something you have to figure out yourself.
I have to plot a graph in processing by the feedback from encoder motors of the bot. so I have two variables basically left motor encoder and right motor encoder. I planned to vary on in x-axis and another in y-axis. While I went through some of the code on internet I found that, almost everyone has written the graph part code in serial event itself?
So my first doubt is why do they write it in serial event() function rather than void draw()? Another thing is when I tried to write my code for graph in void draw() it had a pseudo code something like this:
xpos1=0,ypos1=height;
void draw():
line(xpos1,ypos1,xpos,height-ypos);// obviously the data(xpos,ypos) is mapped with the width and height of the processing ide window.
xpos1=xpos;
ypos1=height-ypos;
if(xpos1>=width)
{
xpos1=0;
}
if(ypos1>=height)
{
ypos1=0;
}
So I get to see only a small dot traversing on processing ide window and I cannot see the older path that my line has travelled which in the case of the sites which I described when wrote the similar piece of code in serial event() they had a whole graph getting made on the processing window.
Where am I getting wrong? Also is there any alternative to plot the graph using void draw()? I want to vary both xpos as well as ypos as i get two feedbacks form left motor and right motor.
Screenshot of my attempted graph in different frames!
Image
Screenshot of one of the graphs made by somewhat the similar code displayed above but written in the serial event() available on the internet:
As stated in the comments, there are too many subquestions here.
Regarding the question relative to the code, there is one main line that is making the code much more complex than it has to be. You are trying to draw a line between each and every couple of numbers received by the two encoders. There is no need to do that. When plotting a graph, I personally use the point(x,y) function. It's much easier to implement for prototyping purposes, and adjusting the frameRate() at which the sketch is running, you won't notice the difference.
void draw() {
point(encoder1, encoder2);
if (encoder1 >= width) {
encoder1 = encoder1 - width;
}
if (encoder2 >= height) {
encoder2 = encoder2 - height;
}
}
A simple sketch like this one will do the job.
The other thing that is not quite clear is the initialisation of the variables. Usually you initialise a variable if it's continuously increasing, like time, but from your description you want to plot on the X axis one encoder, and on the Y axis the other encoder. So wouldn't it be better to map the values to start with in order not to have them go out of the canvas range?
Please edit the question so that the code is clear and concise, following these guidelines, and try to ask one question per post.
Okay, so I have one OBJ file which I read into PCLpointcloud2. Now I want to feed it into a K-dTree. Which is not taking PCLPointCloud2 as input. I want to query any general point if it lies on the surface of my OBJ file.
I am finding it hard to understand their documentation. So how can it be done?
Plus, kindly point me to a good reference easily interpretable. And what is "PointT" BTW? Is it custom build type defined by us? please elaborate.
Look at the code in the provided tool pcl_mesh_sampling (in the PCL code directory under tools/mesh_sampling.cpp). It is relatively simple. It loads a model from PLY or OBJ then for each triangle it samples random points from the triangle. The final point cloud then undergoes a voxel-grid sample to make the points relatively uniform. Alternatively, you can just run the pcl_mesh_sampling program on your obj file to get an output PCD which you can then visualise with pcl_viewer before loading the PCD file into your own code.
Once you have the final point cloud, you can build and use a KD-Tree as per http://pointclouds.org/documentation/tutorials/kdtree_search.php
PointT is the template argument. The point cloud library can handle a variety of point types, from simple PointXYZ (having just x,y,z) to more complicated points like PointXYZRGBNormal (having x,y,z,normal_x,normal_y,normal_z, curvature, r, g, and b channels). Each algorithm is templated on the point type that you want to use. It would probably be easier if you used PointXYZ with your OBJ file, so use pcl::PointXYZ for all your template arguments. For more on templates see http://www.tutorialspoint.com/cplusplus/cpp_templates.htm and http://pointclouds.org/documentation/tutorials/adding_custom_ptype.php.
Update (reply to latest comment)
Added here because this reply is too long for a comment.
I think I see what you are getting at. So when you sample points from the point cloud & build a KD-tree of the object surface, and for each point you keep track which faces are nearby that point (probably all the faces adjacent to the face from which the point was sampled should be sufficient? Just one face is definitely insufficient). Then when the query point is given, you find the nearest point in the KD-tree and check whether the query point is on the "outside" or inside of the full list of nearby faces associated with that point in the KD-tree. If it's on the "inside" of all of them perhaps it is an interior point. But I cannot guarantee that this is true. That is my thinking on that question at the moment. But I do wonder if you want a mesh-based approach really. By the way, if you break your mesh up into convex parts then you can have nice guarantees when processing each convex part.
For a university project I need to implement a computer graphics paper that has been relased a couple of years ago. At one point, I need to triangulate the results I get from my simulation. I guess its easier to explain what I need looking at a picture contained within the paper:
Let's say I already have got all the information it takes to reconstruct the contour lines that you can see in the second thumbnail. Using those I need to do some triangulation using those siluettes as constrains. I have searched the internet for triangulation libraries like CGAL, VTK, Triangle, Triangle++, ... but I always ended up throwing my hands up in horror. I am not a good programmer and it seems impossible to me to get into one of those APIs before the deadline of this project passes.
I would appreciate any kind of help like code snipplets, tips, etc...
I know that the algorithms need segments (pairs of points) as input, so let's say I have got one std::vector containing all pairs of points defining the siluette as well as the left and right side of the rectangle.
Can you somehow give me a code snipplet for i.e. CGAL that I could use for my purpose? First of all I just want to achieve the state of the third thumbnail. Lateron I will have to do some displacement within the "cracks" and finally write the information into a VBO for OpenGL rendering.
I have started working it out with CGAL. One simple problem still drives me crazy:
It is possible to attach informations (like ints) to points before adding them up to the triangulator object. I do this since I need on the one hand an int-flag that I use lateron to define my texture coordinates and on the other hand an index which I use so that I can create a indexed VBO.
http://doc.cgal.org/latest/Triangulation_2/Triangulation_2_2info_insert_with_pair_iterator_2_8cpp-example.html
But instead of points I only want to insert constraint-edges. If I insert both CGAL returns strange results since points have been fed into two times (once as point and once as point of a constrained edge).
http://doc.cgal.org/latest/Triangulation_2/Triangulation_2_2constrained_8cpp-example.html
Is it possible to connect in the same way as with points information to "Constraints" so that I can only use this function cdt.insert_constraint( Point(j,0), Point(j,6)); before I iterate over the resulting faces?
Lateron when I loop over the triangles I need some way to access the int-flags that I defined before. Like this but not on acutal points but the "ends" defined by the constraint edges:
for(CDT::Finite_faces_iterator fit = m_cdt.finite_faces_begin(); fit != m_cdt.finite_faces_end(); ++fit, ++k) {
int j = k*3;
for(int i=0; i < 3; i++) {
indices[j+i] = fit->vertex(i)->info().first;
}
}
Application screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/0uVKZiL.png
Source file: http://pastie.org/private/rcgm6o7qso8y0vz8nfjn0w
My application draws curves and I would like to be able to zoom in and out. When I apply a scale and translate transformation, the mapCanvasImage.canvas().gfx.transform changes accordingly, but nothing changes on the screen.
I used to have a different render approach (source code) in which the transformation did work, but there I could not get the layer to clear after each paint (results from previous paint iterations were still visible).
Perhaps (or likely) I am doing something fundamentally wrong. :) Any advice?
The Canvas offers nice high-level functions to draw Bézier curves, but is apparently flawed. My current plan is to abandon the Canvas and write my own code to convert Bézier curves to line segments. This is really easy and gives the added benefit of using less CPU power, since the Canvas is not hardware accelerated.