I am writing a physics engine/simulator which incorporates 3D space flight, planetary/stellar gravitation, ship thrust and relativistic effects. So far, it is going very well, however, one thing that I need help with is the math of the collision detection algorithm.
The iterative simulation of movement that I am using is basically as follows:
(Note: 3D Vectors are ALL CAPS.)
For each obj
obj.ACC = Sum(all acceleration influences)
obj.POS = obj.POS + (obj.VEL * dT) + (obj.ACC * dT^2)/2 (*EQ.2*)
obj.VEL = obj.VEL + (obj.ACC * dT)
Next
Where:
obj.ACC is the acceleration vector of the object
obj.POS is the position or location vector of the object
obj.VEL is the velocity vector of the object
obj.Radius is the radius (scalar) of the object
dT is the time delta or increment
What I basically need to do is to find some efficient formula that derives from (EQ.2) above for two objects (obj1, obj2) and tell if they ever collide, and if so, at what time. I need the exact time both so that I can determine if it is in this particular time increment (because acceleration will be different at different time increments) and also so that I can locate the exact position (which I know how to do, given the time)
For this engine, I am modelling all objects as spheres, all this formula/algorithm needs to do is to figure out at what points:
(obj1.POS - obj2.POS).Distance = (obj1.Radius + obj2.Radius)
where .Distance is a positive scalar value. (You can also square both sides if this is easier, to avoid the square root function implicit in the .Distance calculation).
(yes, I am aware of many, many other collision detection questions, however, their solutions all seem to be very particular to their engine and assumptions, and none appear to match my conditions: 3D, spheres, and acceleration applied within the simulation increments. Let me know if I am wrong.)
Some Clarifications:
1) It is not sufficient for me to check for Intersection of the two spheres before and after the time increment. In many cases their velocities and position changes will far exceed their radii.
2) RE: efficiency, I do not need help (at this point anyway) with respect to determine likely candidates for collisions, I think that I have that covered.
Another clarification, which seems to be coming up a lot:
3) My equation (EQ.2) of incremental movement is a quadratic equation that applies both Velocity and Acceleration:
obj.POS = obj.POS + (obj.VEL * dT) + (obj.ACC * dT^2)/2
In the physics engines that I have seen, (and certainly every game engine that I ever heard of) only linear equations of incremental movement that apply only Velocity:
obj.POS = obj.POS + (obj.VEL * dT)
This is why I cannot use the commonly published solutions for collision detection found on StackOverflow, on Wikipedia and all over the Web, such as finding the intersection/closest approach of two line segments. My simulation deals with variable accelerations that are fundamental to the results, so what I need is the intersection/closest approach of two parabolic segments.
On the webpage AShelley referred to, the Closest Point of Approach method is developed for the case of two objects moving at constant velocity. However, I believe the same vector-calculus method can be used to derive a result in the case of two objects both moving with constant non-zero acceleration (quadratic time dependence).
In this case, the time derivative of the distance-squared function is 3rd order (cubic) instead of 1st order. Therefore there will be 3 solutions to the Time of Closest Approach, which is not surprising since the path of both objects is curved so multiple intersections are possible. For this application, you would probably want to use the earliest value of t which is within the interval defined by the current simulation step (if such a time exists).
I worked out the derivative equation which should give the times of closest approach:
0 = |D_ACC|^2 * t^3 + 3 * dot(D_ACC, D_VEL) * t^2 + 2 * [ |D_VEL|^2 + dot(D_POS, D_ACC) ] * t + 2 * dot(D_POS, D_VEL)
where:
D_ACC = ob1.ACC-obj2.ACC
D_VEL = ob1.VEL-obj2.VEL (before update)
D_POS = ob1.POS-obj2.POS (also before update)
and dot(A, B) = A.x*B.x + A.y*B.y + A.z*B.z
(Note that the square of the magnitude |A|^2 can be computed using dot(A, A))
To solve this for t, you'll probably need to use formulas like the ones found on Wikipedia.
Of course, this will only give you the moment of closest approach. You will need to test the distance at this moment (using something like Eq. 2). If it is greater than (obj1.Radius + obj2.Radius), it can be disregarded (i.e. no collision). However, if the distance is less, that means the spheres collide before this moment. You could then use an iterative search to test the distance at earlier times. It might also be possible to come up with another (even more complicated) derivation which takes the size into account, or possible to find some other analytic solution, without resorting to iterative solving.
Edit: because of the higher order, some of the solutions to the equation are actually moments of farthest separation. I believe in all cases either 1 of the 3 solutions or 2 of the 3 solutions will be a time of farthest separation. You can test analytically whether you're at a min or a max by evaluating the second derivative with respect to time (at the values of t which you found by setting the first derivative to zero):
D''(t) = 3 * |D_ACC|^2 * t^2 + 6 * dot(D_ACC, D_VEL) * t + 2 * [ |D_VEL|^2 + dot(D_POS, D_ACC) ]
If the second derivative evaluates to a positive number, then you know the distance is at a minimum, not a maximum, for the given time t.
Draw a line between the start location and end location of each sphere. If the resulting line segments intersect the spheres definitely collided at some point and some clever math can find at what time the collision occurred. Also make sure to check if the minimum distance between the segments (if they don't intersect) is ever less than 2*radius. This will also indicate a collision.
From there you can backstep your delta time to happen exactly at collision so you can correctly calculate the forces.
Have you considered using a physics library which already does this work? Many libraries use far more advanced and more stable (better integrators) systems for solving the systems of equations you're working with. Bullet Physics comes to mind.
op asked for time of collision. A slightly different approach will compute it exactly...
Remember that the position projection equation is:
NEW_POS=POS+VEL*t+(ACC*t^2)/2
If we replace POS with D_POS=POS_A-POS_B, VEL with D_VEL=VEL_A-VEL_B, and ACC=ACC_A-ACC_B for objects A and B we get:
$D_NEW_POS=D_POS+D_VEL*t+(D_ACC*t^2)/2
This is the formula for vectored distance between the objects. In order to get the squared scalar distance between them, we can take the square of this equation, which after expansion looks like:
distsq(t) = D_POS^2+2*dot(D_POS,D_VEL)*t + (dot(D_POS, D_ACC)+D_VEL^2)*t^2 + dot(D_VEL,D_ACC)*t^3 + D_ACC^2*t^4/4
In order to find the time where collision occurs, we can set the equation equal to the square of the sum of radii and solve for t:
0 = D_POS^2-(r_A+r_B)^2 + 2*dot(D_POS,D_VEL)*t + (dot(D_POS, D_ACC)+D_VEL^2)*t^2 + dot(D_VEL,D_ACC)*t^3 + D_ACC^2*t^4/4
Now, we can solve for the equation using the quartic formula.
The quartic formula will yield 4 roots, but we are only interested in real roots. If there is a double real root, then the two objects touch edges at exactly one point in time. If there are two real roots, then the objects continuously overlap between root 1 and root 2 (i.e. root 1 is the time when collision starts and root 2 is the time when collision stops). Four real roots means that the objects collide twice, continuously between root pairs 1,2 and 3,4.
In R, I used polyroot() to solve as follows:
# initial positions
POS_A=matrix(c(0,0),2,1)
POS_B=matrix(c(2,0),2,1)
# initial velocities
VEL_A=matrix(c(sqrt(2)/2,sqrt(2)/2),2,1)
VEL_B=matrix(c(-sqrt(2)/2,sqrt(2)/2),2,1)
# acceleration
ACC_A=matrix(c(sqrt(2)/2,sqrt(2)/2),2,1)
ACC_B=matrix(c(0,0),2,1)
# radii
r_A=.25
r_B=.25
# deltas
D_POS=POS_B-POS_A
D_VEL=VEL_B-VEL_A
D_ACC=ACC_B-ACC_A
# quartic coefficients
z=c(t(D_POS)%*%D_POS-r*r, 2*t(D_POS)%*%D_VEL, t(D_VEL)%*%D_VEL+t(D_POS)%*%D_ACC, t(D_ACC)%*%D_VEL, .25*(t(D_ACC)%*%D_ACC))
# get roots
roots=polyroot(z)
# In this case there are only two real roots...
root1=as.numeric(roots[1])
root2=as.numeric(roots[2])
# trajectory over time
pos=function(p,v,a,t){
T=t(matrix(t,length(t),2))
return(t(matrix(p,2,length(t))+matrix(v,2,length(t))*T+.5*matrix(a,2,length(t))*T*T))
}
# plot A in red and B in blue
t=seq(0,2,by=.1) # from 0 to 2 seconds.
a1=pos(POS_A,VEL_A,ACC_A,t)
a2=pos(POS_B,VEL_B,ACC_B,t)
plot(a1,type='o',col='red')
lines(a2,type='o',col='blue')
# points of a circle with center 'p' and radius 'r'
circle=function(p,r,s=36){
e=matrix(0,s+1,2)
for(i in 1:s){
e[i,1]=cos(2*pi*(1/s)*i)*r+p[1]
e[i,2]=sin(2*pi*(1/s)*i)*r+p[2]
}
e[s+1,]=e[1,]
return(e)
}
# plot circles with radius r_A and r_B at time of collision start in black
lines(circle(pos(POS_A,VEL_A,ACC_A,root1),r_A))
lines(circle(pos(POS_B,VEL_B,ACC_B,root1),r_B))
# plot circles with radius r_A and r_B at time of collision stop in gray
lines(circle(pos(POS_A,VEL_A,ACC_A,root2),r_A),col='gray')
lines(circle(pos(POS_B,VEL_B,ACC_B,root2),r_B),col='gray')
Object A follows the red trajectory from the lower left to the upper right. Object B follows the blue trajectory from the lower right to the upper left. The two objects collide continuously between time 0.9194381 and time 1.167549. The two black circles just touch, showing the beginning of overlap - and overlap continues in time until the objects reach the location of the gray circles.
Seems like you want the Closest Point of Approach (CPA). If it is less than the sum of the radiuses, you have a collision. There is example code in the link. You can calculate each frame with the current velocity, and check if the CPA time is less than your tick size. You could even cache the cpa time, and only update when acceleration was applied to either item.
Related
I've been trying to get the correct normals for a sphere I'm messing with using a vertex shader. The algorithm can be boiled down simply to
vert.xyz += max(0, sin(time + 0.004*vert.x))*10*normal.xyz
This causes a wave to roll across the sphere.
In order to make my normals correct, I need to transform them as well. I can take the tangent vector at a given x,y,z, get a perpendicular vector (0, -vert.z, vert.y), and then cross the tangent with the perp vector.
I've been having some issue with the math though, and it's become a personal vendetta at this point. I've solved for the derivative hundreds of times but I keep getting it incorrect. How can I get the tangent?
Breaking down the above line, I can make a math function
f(x,y,z) = max(0, sin(time + 0.004*x))*10*Norm(x,y,z) + (x,y,z)
where Norm(..) is Normalize((x,y,z) - CenterOfSphere)
After applying f(x,y,z), unchanged normals
What is the correct f '(x,y,z)?
I've accounted for the weirdness caused by the max in f(...), so that's not the issue.
Edit: The most successful algorithm I have right now is as follows:
Tangent vector.x = 0.004*10*cos(0.004*vert.x + time)*norm.x + 10*sin(0.004*vert.x + time) + 1
Tangent vector.y = 10*sin(0.004*vert.x + time) + 1
Tangent vector.z = 10*sin(0.004*vert.x + time) + 1
2nd Tangent vector.x = 0
2nd Tangent vector.y = -norm.z
2nd Tangent vector.z = norm.y
Normalize both, and perform Cross(Tangent2, Tangent1). Normalize again, and done (it should be Cross(Tangent1, Tangent2), but this seems to have better results... more hints of an issue in my math!).
This yields this
Get tangent/normal by derivate of function can sometimes fail if your surface points are nonlinearly distributed and or some math singularity is present or if you make a math mistake (which is the case in 99.99%). Anyway you can always use the geometric approach:
1. you can get the tangents easy by
U(x,y,z)=f(x+d,y,z)-f(x,y,z);
V(x,y,z)=f(x,y+d,z)-f(x,y,z);
where d is some small enough step
and f(x,y,z) is you current surface point computation
not sure why you use 3 input variables I would use just 2
but therefore if the shifted point is the same as unshifted
use this instead =f(x,y,z+d)-f(x,y,z);
at the end do not forget to normalize U,V size to unit vector
2. next step
if bullet 1 leads to correct normals
then you can simply solve the U,V algebraically
so rewrite U(x,y,z)=f(x+d,y,z)-f(x,y,z); to full equation
by substituting f(x,y,z) with the surface point equation
and simplify
[notes]
sometimes well selected d can simplify normalization to multipliyng by a constant
you should add normals visualization for example like this:
to actually see what is really happening (for debug purposses)
How do I normalize any given number between 0 and 100?
The min is 0 and the max has no bounds (it's the search volume for a keyword).
normalized = (x-min(x))/(max(x)-min(x)) won't work since I have no definition of max.
Arcus tangens
Algebraically, you might start with some function that has poles, e.g. tan, and use its inverse, atan. That inverse will never exceed a given limit, namely π/2 in this case. Then you can use a formula of the kind
f(x) = 100 * 2/π * atan(x - min)
If that doesn't produce “nice” results for small inputs, you might want to preprocess the inputs:
f(x) = 100 * 2/π * atan(a*(x - min))
for some suitably chosen a. Making a larger than one increases values, while for 0 < a < 1 you get smaller values. According to a comment, the latter is what you'd most likely want.
You could even add a power in there:
f(x) = 100 * 2/π * atan(a*(x - min)^b) = 100 * 2/π * atan(pow(a*(x - min), b))
for some positive parameter b. Having two parameters to tweak gives you more freedom in adjusting the function to your needs. But to decide on what would be good fits, you might have to decide up front as to what values you'd expect for various inputs. A bit like in this question, although there the input range is not unbounded.
Stereographic projection
If you prefer geometric approaches: you can imagine your input as the positive half of the x axis, namely the ray from (0,0) to (∞,0). Then imagine a circle with center (0,1) and radius 1 sitting on that line. If you connect the point (0,2) with any point on the ray, the connecting line will intersect the circle in one other point. That way you can map the ray onto the right half of the circle. Now take either the angle as seen from the center of the circle, or the y coordinate of the point on the circle, or any other finite value like this, normalize input and output properly, and you have a function matching your requirements. You can also work out a formula for this, and atan will likely play a role in that.
Given the points of a line and a quadratic bezier curve, how do you calculate their nearest point?
There exist a scientific paper regarding this question from INRIA: Computing the minimum distance between two Bézier curves (PDF here)
I once wrote a tool to do a similar task. Bezier splines are typically parametric cubic polynomials. To compute the square of the distance between a cubic segment and a line, this is just the square of the distance between two polynomial functions, itself just another polynomial function! Note that I said the square of the distance, not the square root.
Essentially, for any point on a cubic segment, one could compute the square of the distance from that point to the line. This will be a 6th order polynomial. Can we minimize that square of the distance? Yes. The minimum must occur where the derivative of that polynomial is zero. So differentiate, getting a 5th order polynomial. Use your favorite root finding tool that generates all of the roots numerically. Jenkins & Traub, whatever. Choose the correct solution from that set of roots, excluding any solutions that are complex, and only picking a solution if it lies inside the cubic segment in question. Make sure you exclude the points that correspond to local maxima of the distance.
All of this can be efficiently done, and no iterative optimizer besides a polynomial root finder need be used, thus one does not require the use of optimization tools that require starting values, finding only a solution near that starting value.
For example, in the 3-d figure I show a curve generated by a set of points in 3-d (in red), then I took another set of points that lay in a circle outside, I computed the closest point on the inner curve from each, drawing a line down to that curve. These points of minimum distance were generated by the scheme outlined above.
I just wanna give you a few hints, in for the case Q.B.Curve // segment :
to get a fast enough computation, i think you should first think about using a kind of 'bounding box' for your algorithm.
Say P0 is first point of the Q. B. Curve, P2 the second point, P1 the control point, and P3P4 the segment then :
Compute distance from P0, P1, P2 to P3P4
if P0 OR P2 is nearest point --> this is the nearest point of the curve from P3P4. end :=).
if P1 is nearest point, and Pi (i=0 or 1) the second nearest point, the distance beetween PiPC and P3P4 is an estimate of the distance you seek that might be precise enough, depending on your needs.
if you need to be more acurate : compute P1', which is the point on the Q.B.curve the nearest from P1 : you find it applying the BQC formula with t=0.5. --> distance from PiP1' to P3P4 is an even more accurate estimate -but more costly-.
Note that if the line defined by P1P1' intersects P3P4, P1' is the closest point of QBC from P3P4.
if P1P1' does not intersect P3P4, then you're out of luck, you must go the hard way...
Now if (and when) you need precision :
think about using a divide and conquer algorithm on the parameter of the curve :
which is nearest from P3P4 ?? P0P1' or P1'P2 ??? if it is P0P1' --> t is beetween 0 and 0.5 so compute Pm for t=0.25.
Now which is nearest from P3P4?? P0Pm or PmP1' ?? if it is PmP1' --> compute Pm2 for t=0.25+0.125=0.375 then which is nearest ? PmPm2 or Pm2P1' ??? etc
you will come to accurate solution in no time, like 6 iteration and your precision on t is 0.004 !! you might stop the search when distance beetween two points becomes below a given value. (and not difference beetwen two parameters, since for a little change in parameter, points might be far away)
in fact the principle of this algorithm is to approximate the curve with segments more and more precisely each time.
For the curve / curve case i would first 'box' them also to avoid useless computation, so first use segment/segment computation, then (maybe) segment/curve computation, and only if needed curve/curve computation.
For curve/curve, divide and conquer works also, more difficult to explain but you might figure it out. :=)
hope you can find your good balance for speed/accuracy with this :=)
Edit : Think i found for the general case a nice solution :-)
You should iterate on the (inner) bounding triangles of each B.Q.C.
So we have Triangle T1, points A, B, C having 't' parameter tA, tB, tC.
and Triangle T2, points D, E, F, having t parameter tD, tE, tF.
Initially we have tA=0 tB=0.5 tC= 1.0 and same for T2 tD=0, tE=0.5, tF=1.0
The idea is to call a procedure recursivly that will split T1 and/or T2 into smaller rectangles until we are ok with the precision reached.
The first step is to compute distance from T1 from T2, keeping track of with segments were the nearest on each triangle. First 'trick': if on T1 the segment is AC, then stop recursivity on T1, the nearest point on Curve 1 is either A or C. if on T2 the nearest segment is DF, then stop recursivity on T2, the nearest point on Curve2 is either D or F. If we stopped recursivity for both -> return distance = min (AD, AF, CD, CF). then if we have recursivity on T1, and segment AB is nearest, new T1 becomes : A'=A B= point of Curve one with tB=(tA+tC)/2 = 0.25, C=old B. same goes for T2 : apply recursivityif needed and call same algorithm on new T1 and new T2. Stop algorithm when distance found beetween T1 and T2 minus distance found beetween previous T1 and T2 is below a threshold.
the function might look like ComputeDistance(curveParam1, A, C, shouldSplitCurve1, curveParam2, D, F, shouldSplitCurve2, previousDistance) where points store also their t parameters.
note that distance (curve, segment) is just a particular case of this algorithm, and that you should implement distance (triangle, triangle) and distance (segment, triangle) to have it worked. Have fun.
1.Simple bad method - by iteration go by point from first curve and go by point from second curve and get minimum
2.Determine math function of distance between curves and calc limit of this function like:
|Fcur1(t)-Fcur2(t)| ->0
Fs is vector.
I think we can calculate the derivative of this for determine extremums and get nearest and farest points
I think about this some time later, and post full response.
Formulate your problem in terms of standard analysis: You have got a quantity to minimize (distance), so you formulate an equation for this quantity and find the points where the first derivatives are zero. Parameterize with a single parameter by using the curve's parameter p, which is between 0 for the first point and 1 for the last point.
In the line case, the equation is fairly simple: Get the x/y coordinates from the spline's equation and compute the distance to the given line via vector equations (scalar product with the line's normal).
In the curve's case, the analytical solution could get pretty complicated. You might want to use a numerical minimization technique such as Nelder-Mead or, since you have a 1D continuous problem, simple bisection.
In the case of a Bézier curve and a line
There are three candidates for the closest point to the line:
The place on the Bézier curve segment that is parallel to the line (if such a place exists),
One end of the curve segment,
The other end of the curve segment.
Test all three; the shortest distance wins.
In the case of two Bézier curves
Depends if you want the exact analytical result, or if an optimised numerical result is good enough.
Analytical result
Given two Bézier curves A(t) and B(s), you can derive equations for their local orientation A'(t) and B'(s). The point pairs for which A'(t) = B'(s) are candidates, i.e. the (t, s) for which the curves are locally parallel. I haven't checked, but I assume that A'(t) - B'(s) = 0 can be solved analytically. If your curves are anything like those you show in your example, there should be either only one solution or no solution to that equation, but there could be two (or infinitely many in the case where the curves identical but translated -- in which case you can ignore this because the winner will always be one of the curve segment endpoints).
In an approach similar to the curve-line case outline above, test each of these point pairs, plus the curve segment endpoints. The shortest distance wins.
Numerical result
Let's say the points on the two Bézier curves are defined as A(t) and B(s). You want to minimize the distance d( t, s) = |A(t) - B(s)|. It's a simple two-parameter optimization problem: find the s and t that minimize d( t, s) with the constraints 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ s ≤ 1.
Since d = SQRT( ( xA - xB)² + (yA - yB)²), you can also just minimize the function f( t, s) = [d( t, s)]² to save a square root calculation.
There are numerous ready-made methods for such optimization problems. Pick and choose.
Note that in both cases above, anything higher-order than quadratic Bézier curves can giver you more than one local minimum, so this is something to watch out for. From the examples you give, it looks like your curves have no inflexion points, so this concern may not apply in your case.
The point where there normals match is their nearest point. I mean u draw a line orthogonal to the line. .if that line is orthogonal to the curve as well then the point of intersection is the nearest point
I have started to develop unit trajectories for a game server and for now I'm trying to retrieve the position of a unit at a given time. It is easy when the trajectory is just a straight line, but it is far more complicated when unit chases another unit.
I've done flash app to illustrate the problem. Black trajectory is for unit which travels in a single direction. Blue chases black and red chases blue. What I want is to precalculate whole trajectory for blue and red to be able to retrieve their position in a constant time.
Is it possible? Thanks for any help!!
Here's a paper A classic chase problem solved from a
physics perspective by Carl E. Mungan that solves a particular version in which the chaser is initially perpendicular to the chased object's trajectory. I believe this is an inessential element of the solution since that perpendicularity disappears along the rest of the trajectory.
It is an autonomous system of differential equations in the sense that time does not appear explicitly in the coefficients or terms of the equations. This supports the idea that the family of solutions given in the paper is general enough to provide for non-perpendicular initial conditions.
The paper provides further links and references, as well as a useful search term, "curves of pursuit".
Let's state a slight different, slightly more general initial condition than Mungan's. Suppose the chased object ("ship") is initially located at the origin and travels up the positive y-axis (x=0) with constant speed V. The chasing object ("torpedo") is initially located at (x0,y0), and although instantaneous reorienting directly at the "ship", also travels at some constant speed v.
The special case where x0 is zero results in a linear pursuit curve, i.e. a head-on collision or a trailing chase accordingly as y0 is positive or negative. Otherwise by reflection in the y-axis one may assume without loss of generality that x0 > 0. Thus rational powers of x-coordinates will be well-defined.
Assume for our immediate purpose that speeds V,v are unequal, so that ratio r = V/v is not 1. The following is a closed-form solution (1) for the "torpedo" curve similar to Mungan's equation (10):
(1+r) (1-r)
[ (x/H) (x/H) ]
(y/H) = (1/2) [ ----- - ----- ] + C (1)
[ (1+r) (1-r) ]
in which the constants H,C can be determined by the initial conditions.
Applying the condition that initially the torpedo moves toward the ship's location at the origin, we take the derivative with respect to x in (1) and cancel a factor 1/H from both sides:
r -r
dy/dx = (1/2) [ (x/H) - (x/H) ] (2)
Now equate the curve's slope dy/dx at initial point (x0,y0) with that of its line passing through the origin:
r -r
(x0/H) - (x0/H) = 2y0/x0 = K (3)
This amounts to a quadratic equation for positive B = (x0/H)^r:
B^2 - K*B - 1 = 0 (4)
namely B = [K + sqrt(K^2 + 4)]/2 (but use the alternative form if K < 0 to avoid cancellation error), which allows H to be determined from our knowledge of x0 and r:
H = x0/(B^(1/r)) (5)
Knowing H makes it a simple matter to determine the additive constant C in (1) by substituting the initial point (x0,y0) there.
The tricky part will be to determine which point on the "torpedo" trajectory corresponds to a given time t > 0. The inverse of that problem is solved fairly simply. Given a point on the trajectory, find the tangent line at that point using derivative formula (2) and deduce time t from the y-intercept b of that line (i.e. from the current "ship" position):
t = b/V (6)
Therefore determining (x(t),y(t)) where the "torpedo" is located at a given time t > 0 is essentially a root-finding exercise. One readily brackets the desired x(t) between two x-coordinates x1 and x2 that correspond to times t1 and t2 such that t1 < t < t2. A root-finding method can be used to refine this interval until the desired accuracy is achieved. Once a fairly small interval has been refined, Newton's method will provide rapid convergence. We can look at the details of such a procedure in a next installment!
I can set up the problem for you but not solve it.
The black curve is moving at a constant velocity v0, and in a straight line.
The blue curve moves at a constant velocity v1 in the direction of black.
For simplicity, choose coordinates so that at time t=0 the black curve starts at (x=0, y=0) and is moving in the direction x.
Thus, at time t >= 0, the position of the black curve is (v0 t, 0).
Problem statement
The goal is to find x, y of the blue curve for times t >= 0 given the initial position (x(t=0), y(t=0)). The differential equations of motion are
dx / dt = v1 (v0 t - x) / a(t)
dy / dt = v1 (- y) / a(t)
where a(t) = sqrt((v0 t - x)^2 + (y^2)) is the distance between blue and black at time t.
This is a system of two nonlinear coupled differential equations. It seems likely that there is no complete anaytical solution. Wolfram Alpha gives up without trying for the input
D[y[t],t] = -y[t] / sqrt[(t-x[t])^2 + y[t]^2], D[x[t],t] = (t-x[t]) / sqrt[(t-x[t])^2 + y[t]^2]
You could try asking on math.stackexchange. Good luck!
I am new to this forum and not a native english speaker, so please be nice! :)
Here is the challenge I face at the moment:
I want to calculate the (approximate) relative coordinates of yet unknown points in a 3D euclidean space based on a set of given distances between 2 points.
In my first approach I want to ignore possible multiple solutions, just taking the first one by random.
e.g.:
given set of distances: (I think its creating a pyramid with a right-angled triangle as a base)
P1-P2-Distance
1-2-30
2-3-40
1-3-50
1-4-60
2-4-60
3-4-60
Step1:
Now, how do I calculate the relative coordinates for those points?
I figured that the first point goes to 0,0,0 so the second one is 30,0,0.
After that the third points can be calculated by finding the crossing of the 2 circles from points 1 and 2 with their distances to point 3 (50 and 40 respectively). How do I do that mathematically? (though I took these simple numbers for an easy representation of the situation in my mind). Besides I do not know how to get to the answer in a correct mathematical way the third point is at 30,40,0 (or 30,0,40 but i will ignore that).
But getting the fourth point is not as easy as that. I thought I have to use 3 spheres in calculate the crossing to get the point, but how do I do that?
Step2:
After I figured out how to calculate this "simple" example I want to use more unknown points... For each point there is minimum 1 given distance to another point to "link" it to the others. If the coords can not be calculated because of its degrees of freedom I want to ignore all possibilities except one I choose randomly, but with respect to the known distances.
Step3:
Now the final stage should be this: Each measured distance is a bit incorrect due to real life situation. So if there are more then 1 distances for a given pair of points the distances are averaged. But due to the imprecise distances there can be a difficulty when determining the exact (relative) location of a point. So I want to average the different possible locations to the "optimal" one.
Can you help me going through my challenge step by step?
You need to use trigonometry - specifically, the 'cosine rule'. This will give you the angles of the triangle, which lets you solve the 3rd and 4th points.
The rules states that
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2abCosC
where a, b and c are the lengths of the sides, and C is the angle opposite side c.
In your case, we want the angle between 1-2 and 1-3 - the angle between the two lines crossing at (0,0,0). It's going to be 90 degrees because you have the 3-4-5 triangle, but let's prove:
50^2 = 30^2 + 40^2 - 2*30*40*CosC
CosC = 0
C = 90 degrees
This is the angle between the lines (0,0,0)-(30,0,0) and (0,0,0)- point 3; extend along that line the length of side 1-3 (which is 50) and you'll get your second point (0,50,0).
Finding your 4th point is slightly trickier. The most straightforward algorithm that I can think of is to firstly find the (x,y) component of the point, and from there the z component is straightforward using Pythagoras'.
Consider that there is a point on the (x,y,0) plane which sits directly 'below' your point 4 - call this point 5. You can now create 3 right-angled triangles 1-5-4, 2-5-4, and 3-5-4.
You know the lengths of 1-4, 2-4 and 3-4. Because these are right triangles, the ratio 1-4 : 2-4 : 3-4 is equal to 1-5 : 2-5 : 3-5. Find the point 5 using trigonometric methods - the 'sine rule' will give you the angles between 1-2 & 1-4, 2-1 and 2-4 etc.
The 'sine rule' states that (in a right triangle)
a / SinA = b / SinB = c / SinC
So for triangle 1-2-4, although you don't know lengths 1-4 and 2-4, you do know the ratio 1-4 : 2-4. Similarly you know the ratios 2-4 : 3-4 and 1-4 : 3-4 in the other triangles.
I'll leave you to solve point 4. Once you have this point, you can easily solve the z component of 4 using pythagoras' - you'll have the sides 1-4, 1-5 and the length 4-5 will be the z component.
I'll initially assume you know the distances between all pairs of points.
As you say, you can choose one point (A) as the origin, orient a second point (B) along the x-axis, and place a third point (C) along the xy-plane. You can solve for the coordinates of C as follows:
given: distances ab, ac, bc
assume
A = (0,0)
B = (ab,0)
C = (x,y) <- solve for x and y, where:
ac^2 = (A-C)^2 = (0-x)^2 + (0-y)^2 = x^2 + y^2
bc^2 = (B-C)^2 = (ab-x)^2 + (0-y)^2 = ab^2 - 2*ab*x + x^2 + y^2
-> bc^2 - ac^2 = ab^2 - 2*ab*x
-> x = (ab^2 + ac^2 - bc^2)/2*ab
-> y = +/- sqrt(ac^2 - x^2)
For this to work accurately, you will want to avoid cases where the points {A,B,C} are in a straight line, or close to it.
Solving for additional points in 3-space is similar -- you can expand the Pythagorean formula for the distance, cancel the quadratic elements, and solve the resulting linear system. However, this does not directly help you with your steps 2 and 3...
Unfortunately, I don't know a well-behaved exact solution for steps 2 and 3, either. Your overall problem will generally be both over-constrained (due to conflicting noisy distances) and under-constrained (due to missing distances).
You could try an iterative solver: start with a random placement of all your points, compare the current distances with the given ones, and use that to adjust your points in such a way as to improve the match. This is an optimization technique, so I would look up books on numerical optimization.
If you know the distance between the nodes (fixed part of system) and the distance to the tag (mobile) you can use trilateration to find the x,y postion.
I have done this using the Nanotron radio modules which have a ranging capability.