Demo almost (?) working example: https://ellie-app.com/4h9F8FNcRPya1/1
For demo: Click to draw ray, and rotate camera with left and right to see ray. (As the origin is from the camera, you can't see it from the position it is created)
Context
I am working on an elm & elm-webgl project where I would like to know if the mouse is over an object when clicked. To do is I tried to implement a simple ray cast. What I need is two things:
1) The coordinate of the camera (This one is easy)
2) The coordinate/direction in 3D space of where was clicked
Problem
The steps to get from 2D view space to 3D world space as I understand are:
a) Make coordinates to be in a range of -1 to 1 relative to view port
b) Invert projection matrix and perspective matrix
c) Multiply projection and perspective matrix
d) Create Vector4 from normalised mouse coordinates
e) Multiply combined matrices with Vector4
f) Normalise result
Try so far
I have made a function to transform a Mouse.Position to a coordinate to draw a line to:
getClickPosition : Model -> Mouse.Position -> Vec3
getClickPosition model pos =
let
x =
toFloat pos.x
y =
toFloat pos.y
normalizedPosition =
( (x * 2) / 1000 - 1, (1 - y / 1000 * 2) )
homogeneousClipCoordinates =
Vec4.vec4
(Tuple.first normalizedPosition)
(Tuple.second normalizedPosition)
-1
1
inversedProjectionMatrix =
Maybe.withDefault Mat4.identity (Mat4.inverse (camera model))
inversedPerspectiveMatrix =
Maybe.withDefault Mat4.identity (Mat4.inverse perspective)
inversedMatrix2 =
Mat4.mul inversedProjectionMatrix inversedPerspectiveMatrix
to =
Vec4.vec4
(Tuple.first normalizedPosition)
(Tuple.second normalizedPosition)
1
1
toInversed =
mulVector inversedMatrix2 to
toNorm =
Vec4.normalize toInversed
toVec3 =
vec3 (Vec4.getX toNorm) (Vec4.getY toNorm) (Vec4.getZ toNorm)
in
toVec3
Result
The result of this function is that the rays are too much to the center to where I click. I added a screenshot where I clicked in all four of the top face of the cube. If I click on the center of the viewport the ray will be correctly positioned.
It feels close, but not quite there yet and I can't figure out what I am doing wrong!
After trying other approaches I found a solution:
getClickPosition : Model -> Mouse.Position -> Vec3
getClickPosition model pos =
let
x =
toFloat pos.x
y =
toFloat pos.y
normalizedPosition =
( (x * 2) / 1000 - 1, (1 - y / 1000 * 2) )
homogeneousClipCoordinates =
Vec4.vec4
(Tuple.first normalizedPosition)
(Tuple.second normalizedPosition)
-1
1
inversedViewMatrix =
Maybe.withDefault Mat4.identity (Mat4.inverse (camera model))
inversedProjectionMatrix =
Maybe.withDefault Mat4.identity (Mat4.inverse perspective)
vec4CameraCoordinates = mulVector inversedProjectionMatrix homogeneousClipCoordinates
direction = Vec4.vec4 (Vec4.getX vec4CameraCoordinates) (Vec4.getY vec4CameraCoordinates) -1 0
vec4WorldCoordinates = mulVector inversedViewMatrix direction
vec3WorldCoordinates = vec3 (Vec4.getX vec4WorldCoordinates) (Vec4.getY vec4WorldCoordinates) (Vec4.getZ vec4WorldCoordinates)
normalizedVec3WorldCoordinates = Vec3.normalize vec3WorldCoordinates
origin = model.cameraPos
scaledDirection = Vec3.scale 20 normalizedVec3WorldCoordinates
destination = Vec3.add origin scaledDirection
in
destination
I left it as verbose as possible, if someone finds I use incorrect terminology please make a comment and I will update the answer.
I am sure there are lots of optimisations possible (Multiplying matrices before inverting or combining some of the steps.)
Updated the ellie app here: https://ellie-app.com/4hZ9s8S92PSa1/0
Related
I am currently developing a grid for a simple simulation and I have been tasked with interpolating some values tied to vertices of a triangle.
So far I have this:
let val1 = 10f
let val2 = 15f
let val3 = 12f
let point1 = Vector2(100f, 300f), val1
let point2 = Vector2(300f, 102f), val2
let point3 = Vector2(100f, 100f), val3
let points = [point1; point2; point3]
let find (points : (Vector2*float32) list) (pos : Vector2) =
let (minX, minXv) = points |> List.minBy (fun (v, valu) -> v.X)
let (maxX, maxXv) = points |> List.maxBy (fun (v, valu)-> v.X)
let (minY, minYv) = points |> List.minBy (fun (v, valu) -> v.Y)
let (maxY, maxYv) = points |> List.maxBy (fun (v, valu) -> v.Y)
let xy = (pos - minX)/(maxX - minX)*(maxX - minX)
let dx = ((maxXv - minXv)/(maxX.X - minX.X))
let dy = ((maxYv - minYv)/(maxY.Y - minY.Y))
((dx*xy.X + dy*xy.Y)) + minXv
Where you get a list of points forming a triangle. I find the minimum X and Y and the max X and Y with the corresponding values tied to them.
The problem is this approach only works with a right sided triangle. With an equilateral triangle the mid point will end up having a higher value at its vertex than the value that is set.
So I guess the approach is here to essentially project a right sided triangle and create some sort of transformation matrix between any triangle and this projected triangle?
Is this correct? If not, then any pointers would be most appreciated!
You probably want a linear interpolation where the interpolated value is the result of a function of the form
f(x, y) = a*x + b*y + c
If you consider this in 3d, with (x,y) a position on the ground and f(x,y) the height above it, this formula will give you a plane.
To obtain the parameters you can use the points you have:
f(x1, y1) = x1*a + y1*b * 1*c = v1 ⎛x1 y1 1⎞ ⎛a⎞ ⎛v1⎞
f(x2, y2) = x2*a + y2*b * 1*c = v2 ⎜x2 y2 1⎟ * ⎜b⎟ = ⎜v2⎟
f(x3, y3) = x3*a + y3*b * 1*c = v3 ⎝x3 y3 1⎠ ⎝c⎠ ⎝v3⎠
This is a 3×3 system of linear equations: three equations in three unknowns.
You can solve this in a number of ways, e.g. using Gaussian elimination, the inverse matrix, Cramer's rule or some linear algebra library. A numerics expert may tell you that there are differences in the numeric stability between these approaches, particularly if the corners of the triangle are close to lying on a single line. But as long as you're sufficiently far away from that degenerate situation, it probably doesn't make a huge practical difference for simple use cases. Note that if you want to interpolate values for multiple positions relative to a single triangle, you'd only compute a,b,c once and then just use the simple linear formula for each input position, which might lead to a considerable speed-up.
Advanced info: For some applications, linear interpolation is not good enough, but to find something more appropriate you would need to provide more data than your question suggests is available. One example that comes to my mind is triangle meshes for 3d rendering. If you use linear interpolation to map the triangles to texture coordinates, then they will line up along the edges but the direction of the mapping can change abruptly, leading to noticeable seams. A kind of projective interpolation or weighted interpolation can avoid this, as I learned from a paper on conformal equivalence of triangle meshes (Springborn, Schröder, Pinkall, 2008), but for that you need to know how the triangle in world coordinates maps to the triangle in texture coordinates, and your also need the triangle mesh and the correspondence to the texture to be compatible with this mapping. Then you'd map in such a way that you not only transport corners to corners, but also circumcircle to circumcircle.
I'm trying to find the orientation of a binary image (where orientation is defined to be the axis of least moment of inertia, i.e. least second moment of area). I'm using Dr. Horn's book (MIT) on Robot Vision which can be found here as reference.
Using OpenCV, here is my function, where a, b, and c are the second moments of area as found on page 15 of the pdf above (page 60 of the text):
Point3d findCenterAndOrientation(const Mat& src)
{
Moments m = cv::moments(src, true);
double cen_x = m.m10/m.m00; //Centers are right
double cen_y = m.m01/m.m00;
double a = m.m20-m.m00*cen_x*cen_x;
double b = 2*m.m11-m.m00*(cen_x*cen_x+cen_y*cen_y);
double c = m.m02-m.m00*cen_y*cen_y;
double theta = a==c?0:atan2(b, a-c)/2.0;
return Point3d(cen_x, cen_y, theta);
}
OpenCV calculates the second moments around the origin (0,0) so I have to use the Parallel Axis Theorem to move the axis to the center of the shape, mr^2.
The center looks right when I call
Point3d p = findCenterAndOrientation(src);
rectangle(src, Point(p.x-1,p.y-1), Point(p.x+1, p.y+1), Scalar(0.25), 1);
But when I try to draw the axis with lowest moment of inertia, using this function, it looks completely wrong:
line(src, (Point(p.x,p.y)-Point(100*cos(p.z), 100*sin(p.z))), (Point(p.x, p.y)+Point(100*cos(p.z), 100*sin(p.z))), Scalar(0.5), 1);
Here are some examples of input and output:
(I'd expect it to be vertical)
(I'd expect it to be horizontal)
I worked with the orientation sometimes back and coded the following. It returns me the exact orientation of the object. largest_contour is the shape that is detected.
CvMoments moments1,cenmoments1;
double M00, M01, M10;
cvMoments(largest_contour,&moments1);
M00 = cvGetSpatialMoment(&moments1,0,0);
M10 = cvGetSpatialMoment(&moments1,1,0);
M01 = cvGetSpatialMoment(&moments1,0,1);
posX_Yellow = (int)(M10/M00);
posY_Yellow = (int)(M01/M00);
double theta = 0.5 * atan(
(2 * cvGetCentralMoment(&moments1, 1, 1)) /
(cvGetCentralMoment(&moments1, 2, 0) - cvGetCentralMoment(&moments1, 0, 2)));
theta = (theta / PI) * 180;
// fit an ellipse (and draw it)
if (largest_contour->total >= 6) // can only do an ellipse fit
// if we have > 6 points
{
CvBox2D box = cvFitEllipse2(largest_contour);
if ((box.size.width < imgYellowThresh->width) && (box.size.height < imgYellowThresh->height))
{
cvEllipseBox(imgYellowThresh, box, CV_RGB(255, 255 ,255), 3, 8, 0 );
}
}
I have the last two CGPoints from a Array which contains points of line drawn by the user . i need to extend the line upto a fixed distance at the same angle. so i first calculate the angle between the last two points with the help of following code
-(CGFloat)angleBetweenFirstPoint:(CGPoint)firstPoint ToSecondPoint:(CGPoint)secondPoint
{
CGPoint diff = ccpSub(secondPoint, firstPoint);
NSLog(#"difference point %f , %f",diff.x,diff.y);
CGFloat res = atan2(diff.y, diff.x);
/*if ( res < 0 )
{
res = (0.5 * M_PI) + res;
}
if ( dx<0 && dy>0 ) { // 2nd quadrant
res += 0.5 * M_PI;
} else if ( dx<0 && dy<0 ) { // 3rd quadrant
res += M_PI;
} else if ( dx>0 && dy<0 ) { // 4th quadrant
res += M_PI + (0.5 * M_PI);
}*/
//res=res*180/M_PI;
res = CC_RADIANS_TO_DEGREES(res);
return res;
}
After calculating the angle i find the extend point with the help of following maths
-(void)extendLine
{
lineAngle = [self angleBetweenFirstPoint:pointD ToSecondPoint:endPt];
extendEndPt.x = endPt.x - cos(lineAngle) * 200;
extendEndPt.y = endPt.y - sin(lineAngle) * 200;
// draw line unto extended point
}
But the point i am getting is not right to draw the extended line at the same angle as the original line.
I think it is because i am not getting the right angle between those last points.. what am i possibly doing wrong?? Do i need to consider the whole quadrant system while considering the angle and how? and m working in landscape mode. does that make any difference??
Ye gods, you are doing this in a way that is WILDLY INCREDIBLY over-complicated.
Skip all of the crapola with angles. You don't need it. Period. Do it all with vectors, and very simple ones. First of all, I'll assume that you are given two points, P1 and P2. You wish to find a new point P3, that is a known distance (d) from P2, along the line that connects the two points.
All you need do is first, compute a vector that points along the line in question.
V = P2 - P1;
I've written it as if I am writing in MATLAB, but all this means is to subtract the x and y coordinates of the two points.
Next, scale the vector V to have unit length.
V = V/sqrt(V(1)^2 + V(2)^2);
Dividing the components of the vector V by the length (or 2-norm if you prefer) of that vector creates a vector with unit norm. That norm is just the square root of the sum of squares of the elements of V, so it is clearly the length of the vector.
Now it is simple to compute P3.
P3 = P2 + d*V;
P3 will lie at a distance of d units from P2, in the direction of the line away from point P1. Nothing sophisticated required. No angles computed. No worry about quadrants.
Learn to use vectors. They are your friends, or at the least, they can be if you let them.
i have a list of gps coordinates (long,lat) and i have my current position (long,lat).
i found out that by subtracting the two coordinates i find the relative coordinates from my position, and that coordinates i use in my AR app to draw the pois in the opengl world.
the problem is that far-away coordinates will still be too far to "see", so i want an equation to translate everything to be close to my position, but with their original relative position.
double kGpsToOpenglCoorRatio = 1000;
- (void)convertGlobalCoordinatesToLocalCoordinates:(double)latitude x_p:(double *)x_p longitude:(double)longitude y_p:(double *)y_p {
*x_p = ((latitude - _userLocation.coordinate.latitude) * kGpsToOpenglCoorRatio);
*y_p = ((longitude - _userLocation.coordinate.longitude) * kGpsToOpenglCoorRatio);
}
i tried applying Square root in order to give them a "distance limit", but their positions got messed up relatively to their original position.
This might be because GPS uses a spherical(ish) coordinate system, and you're trying to directly map it to a cartesian coordinate system (a plane).
What you could to do is convert your GPS coordinates to a local reference plane, rather than map them directly. If you consider your own location the origin of your coordinate system, you can get the polar coordinates of the points on the ground plane relative to the origin and true north by using great circle distance (r) and bearing (theta) between your location and the remote coordinate, and then covert that to cartesian coordinates using (x,y) = (r*cos(theta), r*sin(theta)).
Better again for your case, once you have the great circle bearing, you can just foreshorten r (the distance). That will drag the points closer to you in both x and y, but they'll still be at the correct relative bearing, you'll just need to indicate this somehow.
Another approach is to scale the size of the objects you're visualizing so that they get larger with distance to compensate for perspective. This way you can just directly use the correct position and orientation.
This page has the bearing/distance algorithms: http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
I ended up solving it using the equation of the gps coordinate intercepted with the circle i want all the pois to appear on, it works perfectly. I didn't use bearings anywhere.
here is the code if anyone interested:
- (void)convertGlobalCoordinatesToLocalCoordinates:(double)latitude x_p:(double *)x_p longitude:(double)longitude y_p:(double *)y_p {
double x = (latitude - _userLocation.coordinate.latitude) * kGpsToOpenglCoorRatio;
double y = (longitude - _userLocation.coordinate.longitude) * kGpsToOpenglCoorRatio;
y = (y == 0 ? y = 0.0001 : y);
x = (x == 0 ? x = 0.0001 : x);
double slope = x / ABS(y);
double outY = sqrt( kPoiRadius / (1+pow(slope,2)) );
double outX = slope * outY;
if (y < 0) {
outY = -1 * outY;
}
*x_p = outX;
*y_p = outY;
}
I have two items, lets call them Obj1 and Obj2... Both have a current position pos1 and pos2.. Moreover they have current velocity vectors speed1 and speed2 ... How can I make sure that if their distances are getting closer (with checking current and NEXT distance), they will move farther away from eachother ?
I have a signed angle function that gives me the signed angle between 2 vectors.. How can I utilize it to check how much should I rotate the speed1 and speed2 to move those sprites from eachother ?
public float signedAngle(Vector2 v1, Vector2 v2)
{
float perpDot = v1.X * v2.Y - v1.Y * v2.X;
return (float)Math.Atan2(perpDot, Vector2.Dot(v1, v2));
}
I check the NEXT and CURRENT distances like that :
float currentDistance = Vector2.Distance(s1.position, s2.position);
Vector2 obj2_nextpos = s2.position + s2.speed + s2.drag;
Vector2 obj1_nextpos = s1.position + s1.speed + s1.drag;
Vector2 s2us = s2.speed;
s2us.Normalize();
Vector2 s1us = s1.speed;
s1us.Normalize();
float nextDistance = Vector2.Distance(obj1_nextpos , obj2_nextpos );
Then depending whether they are getting bigger or smaller I want to move them away (either by increasing their current speed at the same direction or MAKING THEM FURTHER WHICH I FAIL)...
if (nextDistance < currentDistance )
{
float angle = MathHelper.ToRadians(180)- signedAngle(s1us, s2us);
s1.speed += Vector2.Transform(s1us, Matrix.CreateRotationZ(angle)) * esc;
s2.speed += Vector2.Transform(s2us, Matrix.CreateRotationZ(angle)) * esc;
}
Any ideas ?
if objects A and B are getting closer, one of the object components (X or Y) is opposite.
in this case Bx is opposite to Ax, so only have to add Ax to the velocity vector of object B, and Bx to velocity vector of object A
If I understood correctly, this is the situation and you want to obtain the two green vectors.
The red vector is easy to get: redVect = pos1 - pos2. redVect and greenVect2 will point to the same direction, so the only step you have is to scale it so its length will match speed2's one: finalGreenVect2 = greenvect2.Normalize() * speed2.Length (although I'm not actually sure about this formula). greenVect1 = -redVect so finalGreenVect1 = greenVect1.Normalize() * speed1.Length. Then speed1 = finalGreenVect1 and speed2 = finalGreenVect2. This approach will give you instant turn, if you prefer a smooth turn you want to rotate the speed vector by:
angle = signedAngle(speed) + (signedAngle(greenVect) - signedAngle(speed)) * 0.5f;
The o.5f is the rotation speed, adjust it to any value you need. I'm afraid that you have to create a rotation matrix then Transform() the speed vector with this matrix.
Hope this helps ;)