I have 2 six faced solids. The only guarantee is that they each have 8 vertex3f's (verticies with x,y and z components). Given this, how can I find out if these are colliding?
I'm hesitant to answer after you deleted your last question while I was trying to answer it and made me lose my post. Please don't do that again. Anyway:
Not necessarily optimal, but obviously correct, based on constructive solid geometry:
Represent the two solids each as an intersection of 6 half-spaces. Note that this depends on convexity but nothing else, and extends to solids with more sides. My preferred representation for halfspaces is to choose a point on each surface (for example, a vertex) and the outward-pointing unit normal vector to that surface.
Intersect the two solids by treating all 12 half-spaces as the defining half-spaces for a new solid. (This step is purely conceptual and might not involve any actual code.)
Compute the surface/edge representation of the new solid and check that it's non-empty. One approach to doing this is to initially populate your surface/edge representation with one surface for each of the 12 half-spaces with edges outside the bounds of the 2 solids, then intersect its edges with each of the remaining 11 half-spaces.
It sounds like a bit of work, but there's nothing complicated. Only dot products, cross products (to get the initial representation), and projections.
It seems I'm too dumb to quit.
Consider this. If any edge of solid 1 intersects any face of solid 2, you have a collision. That's not quite comprehensive because there are case when one is is fully contained in the other, which you can test by determining if the center of either is contained in the other.
Checking edge face intersection works like this.
Define the edge as vector starting from one vertex running to the other. Take note of the length, L, of the edge.
Define the plane segments by a vertex, a normal, an in-plane basis, and the positions of the remaining vertices in that basis.
Find the intersection of the line and the plane. In the usual formulation you will be able to get both the length along the line, and the in-plane coordinates of the intersection in the basis that you have chosen.
The intersection must line as length [0,L], and must lie inside the figure in the plane. That last part is a little harder, but has a well known general solution.
This will work. For eloquence, I rather prefer R..'s solution. If you need speed...well, you'll just have to try them and see.
Suppose one of your hexahedrons H1 has vertices (x_1, y_1, z_1), (x_2, y_2, z_2), .... Find the maximum and minimum in each coordinate: x_min = min(x_1, x_2, ...), x_max = max(x_1, x_2,...), and so on. Do the same for the other hexahedron H2.
If the interval [x_min(H1), x_max(H1)] and the interval [x_min(H2), x_max(H2)] do not intersect (that is, either x_max(H1) < x_min(H2) or x_max(H2) < x_min(H1)), then the hexahedrons cannot possibly collide. Repeat this for the y and z coordinates. Qualitatively, this is like looking at the shadow of each hexahedron on the x-axis. If they don't overlap, the polyhedrons can't collide.
If any of the intervals do overlap, you'll have to move on to more precise collision detection. This will be a lot trickier. The obvious brute force method is to check if any of the edges of one intersects any of the faces of the other, but I imagine you can do a lot better than that.
The brute force way to check if an edge intersects a face... First you'd find the intersection of the line defined by the edge with the plane defined by the face (see wikipedia, for example). Then you have to check if that point is actually on the edge and the face. The edge is easy - just see if the coordinates are between the coordinates of the two vertices defining the edge. The face is trickier, especially with no guarantees about it being convex. In the general case, you'll have to just see which side of the half-planes defined by each edge it's on. If it's on the inside half-plane for all of them, it's inside the face. I unfortunately don't have time to type that all up now, but I bet googling could aid you some there. But of course, this is all brute force, and there may be a better way. (And dmckee points out a special case that this doesn't handle)
Related
I'm trying to fit a rectangle around a set of 8 2D-Points, while trying to minimize the covered area.
Example:
The rectangle may be scaled and rotated. However it needs to stay a rectangle.
My first approach was to brute force each possible rotation, fit the rectangle as close as possible, and calculate the covered area. The best fit would be then the rotation with the lowest area.
However this does not really sound like the best solution.
Is there any better way for doing this?
I don't know what you mean by "try every possible rotation", as there are infinitely many of them, but this basic idea actually yields a very efficient solution:
The first step is to compute the convex hull. How much this actually saves depends on the distribution of your data, but for points picked uniformly from a unit disk, the number of points on the hull is expected to be O(n^1/3). There are a number of ways to do that:
If the points are already sorted by one of their coordinates, the Graham scan algorithm does that in O(n). For every point in the given order, connect it to the previous two in the hull and then remove every concave point (the only candidate are those neighboring the new point) on the new hull.
If the points are not sorted, the gift-wrapping algorithm is a simple algorithm that runs at O(n*h). For each point on the hull starting from the leftmost point of the input, check every point to see if it's the next point on the hull. h is the number of points on the hull.
Chen's algorithm promises O(n log h) performance, but I haven't quite explored how it works.
another simle idea would be to sort the points by their azimuth and then remove the concave ones. However, this only seems like O(n+sort) at first, but I'm afraid it actually isn't.
At this point, checking every angle collected thus far should suffice (as conjenctured by both me and Oliver Charlesworth, and for which Evgeny Kluev offered a gist of a proof). Finally, let me refer to the relevant reference in Lior Kogan's answer.
For each direction, the bounding box is defined by the same four (not necessarily distinct) points for every angle in that interval. For the candidate directions, you will have at least one arbitrary choice to make. Finding these points might seem like an O(h^2) task until you realise that the extremes for the axis-aligned bounding box are the same extremes that you start the merge from, and that consecutive intervals have their extreme points either identical or consecutive. Let us call the extreme points A,B,C,D in the clockwise order, and let the corresponding lines delimiting the bounding box be a,b,c,d.
So, let's do the math. The bounding box area is given by |a,c| * |b,d|. But |a,c| is just the vector (AC) projected onto the rectangle's direction. Let u be a vector parallel to a and c and let v be the perpendicular vector. Let them vary smoothly across the range. In the vector parlance, the area becomes ((AC).v) / |v| * ((BD).u) / |u| = {((AC).v) ((BD).u)} / {|u| |v|}. Let us also choose that u = (1,y). Then v = (y, -1). If u is vertical, this poses a slight problem involving limits and infinities, so let's just choose u to be horizontal in that case instead. For numerical stability, let's just rotate 90° every u that is outside (1,-1)..(1,1). Translating the area to the cartesian form, if desired, is left as an exercise for the reader.
It has been shown that the minimum area rectangle of a set of points is collinear with one of the edges of the collection's convex hull polygon ["Determining the Minimum-Area Encasing Rectangle for an Arbitrary Closed Curve" [Freeman, Shapira 1975]
An O(nlogn) solution for this problem was published in "On the computation of minimum encasing rectangles and set diameters" [Allison, Noga, 1981]
A simple and elegant O(n) solution was published in "A Linear time algorithm for the minimum area rectangle enclosing a convex polygon" [Arnon, Gieselmann 1983] when the input is the convex hull (The complexity of constructing a convex hull is equal to the complexity of sorting the input points). The solution is based on the Rotating calipers method described in Shamos, 1978. An online demonstration is available here.
They first thing that came to mind when I saw this problem was to use principal component analysis. I conjecture that the smallest rectangle is the one that satisfies two conditions: that the edges are parallel with the principal axes and that at least four points lie on the edges (bounded points). There should be an extension to n dimensions.
I have a set of point cloud, and I would like to test if there is a corner in a 3D room. So I would like to discuss my approach and if there is a better approach or not in terms of speed, because I want to test it on mobile phones.
I will try to use hough tranform to detect lines, then I will try to see if there are three lines that are intersecting and they make a two plane that are intersecting too.
If the point cloud data comes from a depth sensor, then you have a relatively dense sampling of your walls. One thing I found that works well with depth sensors (e.g. Kinect or DepthSense) is a robust version of the RANSAC procedure that #MartinBeckett suggested.
Instead of picking 3 points at random, pick one point at random, and get the neighboring points in the cloud. There are two ways to do that:
The proper way: use a 3D nearest neighbor query data structure, like a KD-tree, to get all the points within some small distance from your query point.
The sloppy but faster way: use the pixel grid neighborhood of your randomly selected pixel. This may include points that are far from it in 3D, because they are on a different plane/object, but that's OK, since this pixel will not get much support from the data.
The next step is to generate a plane equation from that group of 3D points. You can use PCA on their 3D coordinates to get the two most significant eigenvectors, which define the plane surface (the last eigenvector should be the normal).
From there, the RANSAC algorithm proceeds as usual: check how many other points in the data are close to that plane, and find the plane(s) with maximal support. I found it better to find the largest support plane, remove the supporting 3D points, and run the algorithm again to find other 'smaller' planes. This way you may be able to get all the walls in your room.
EDIT:
To clarify the above: the support of a hypothesized plane is the set of all 3D points whose distance from that plane is at most some threshold (e.g. 10 cm, should depend on the depth sensor's measurement error model).
After each run of the RANSAC algorithm, the plane that had the largest support is chosen. All the points supporting that plane may be used to refine the plane equation (this is more robust than just using the neighboring points) by performing PCA/linear regression on the support set.
In order to proceed and find other planes, the support of the previous iteration should be removed from the 3D point set, so that remaining points lie on other planes. This may be repeated as long as there are enough points and best plane fit error is not too large.
In your case (looking for a corner), you need at least 3 perpendicular planes. If you find two planes with large support which are roughly parallel, then they may be the floor and some counter, or two parallel walls. Either the room has no visible corner, or you need to keep looking for a perpendicular plane with smaller support.
Normal approach would be ransac
Pick 3 points at random.
Make a plane.
Check if each other point lies on the plane.
If enough are on the plane - recalculate a best plane from all these points and remove them from the set
If not try another 3 points
Stop when you have enough planes, or too few points left.
Another approach if you know that the planes are near vertical or near horizontal.
pick a small vertical range
Get all the points in this range
Try and fit 2d lines
Repeat for other Z ranges
If you get a parallel set of lines in each Z slice then they are probably have a plane - recalculate the best fit plane for the points.
I would first like to point out
Even though this is an old post, I would like to present a complementary approach, similar to Hough Voting, to find all corner locations, composed of plane intersections, jointly:
Uniformly sample the space. Ensure that there is at least a distance $d$ between the points (e.g. you can even do this is CloudCompare with a 'space' subsampling)
Compute the point cloud normals at these points.
Randomly pick 3 points from this downsampled cloud.
Each oriented point (point+plane) defines a hypothetical plane. Therefore, each 3 point picked define 3 planes. Those planes, if not parallel and not intersecting at a line, always intersect at a single point.
Create a voting space to describe the corner: The intersection of the 3 planes (the point) might a valid parameterization. So our parameter space has 3 free parameters.
For each 3 points cast a vote in the accumulator space to the corner point.
Go to (2) and repeat until all sampled points are exhausted, or enough iterations are done. This way we'll be casting votes for all possible corner locations.
Take the local maxima of the accumulator space. Depending on the votes, we'll be selecting the corners from intersection of the largest planes (as they'll receive more votes) to the intersection of small planes. The largest 4 are probably the corners of the room. If not, one could also consider the other local maxima.
Note that the voting space is a quantized 3D space and the corner location will be a rough estimate of the actual one. If desired, one could store the planes intersection at that very location and refine them (with iterative optimization similar to ICP or etc) to get a very fine corner location.
This approach will be quite fast and probably very accurate, given that you could refine the location. I believe it's the best algorithm presented so far. Of course this assumes that we could compute the normals of the point clouds (we can always do that at sample locations with the help of the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix).
Please also look here, where I have put out a list of plane-fitting related questions at stackoverflow:
3D Plane fitting algorithms
I have points in 3D which make 2 or 3 side of rectangle. How I can calculate the coordinates of the cube's corners? Is it possible?
Updated: https://github.com/CPIGroup/3d-Camera-scanDimensions
This is just an idea, not a proven method.
First, find the planes. Randomly select 3 points, find a plane that passes through them, normalize the 4 parameters. Repeat 1000 or so times. You will end up with 1000 4-tuples of numbers. Use one of the clustering analysis methods to find 2 or 3 groups of 4-tuples that are very close together. Average each of the groups. These will be, approximately, planes of your box's sides.
Now make them more precise. For each plane, find all points that are close to it but not close to other planes (for some value of "close", perhaps to be found using a clustering method too). For each such group of points, find a best fit plane using least squares.
If you have three planes, great; intersect them and you have a vertex and three edges. For two planes, you only have one edge. Either way, you can now try to find other edges. For simplicity, consider your plane to be an XY plane and your known edge an X axis. You now need to find the leftmost (rightmost) vertical line such that most of the points are to the left (resp. right) of it. Project all the points to the X axis. You now have a 1-dimensional case of your original problem: there is a lot of random points on some interval, find the interval. Use a clustering method again.
I'm not super experienced with this, but possibly you could use RANSAC ?
There seem to be many papers on the plane detection from pointclouds using RANSAC
Also you might want to have a look at the Point Clouds Library(PCL).It's a pretty impressive project with many useful features including also planar segmentation
As soon as the planes are detected, it should be a matter of finding the edges/corners which should be a lot simpler.
I am working on an asteroids clone. Everything is 2D, and written in C++.
For the asteroids, I am generating random N-sided polygons. I have guaranteed that they are Convex. I then rotate them, give them a rotspeed, and have them fly through space. It all works, and is very pretty.
For collision, I'm using an Algorithm I thought of myself. This is probably a bad idea, and if push comes to shove, I'll probably scrap the whole thing and find a tutorial on the internet.
I've written and implemented everything, and the collision detection works alright.... most of the time. It will randomly fail when there's obviously a collision on screen, and sometimes indicate collision when nothing is touching. Either I have flubbed my implementation somewhere, or my algorithm is horrible. Due to the size/scope of my implementation (over several source files) I didn't want to bother you with that, and just wanted someone to check that my algorithm is, in fact, sound. At that point I can go on a big bug hunt.
Algorithm:
For each Asteroid, I have a function that outputs where each vertex should be when drawing the asteroid. For each pair of adjacent Vertices, I generate the Formula for the line that they sit on, y=mx+b format. I then start with one of my ships vertices, testing that point to see whether it is inside the asteroid. I start by plugging in the X coordinate of the point, and comparing the output to the Actual Y value. This tells me if the point is above or below the line. I then do the same with the Center of the Asteroid, to determine which half of the line is considered "Inside" the asteroid. I then repeat for each pair of Vertices. IF I ever find a line for which my point is not on the same side as the center of the asteroid, I know there is no collision, and exit detection for that point. Since there are 3 points on my ship, I then have to test for the next point. If all 3 points exit early, then There are no collisions for any of the points on the ship, and we're done. If any point is bound on all sides by the lines made up by the asteroid, then it is inside the asteroid, and the collision flag is set.
The two Issues I've discovered with this algorithm is that:
it doesn't work on concave polygons, and
It has problems with an Edge case where the Slope is Undefined.
I have made sure all polygons are Convex, and have written code to handle the Undefined Slope issue (doubles SHOULD return NAN if we divide by 0, so it's pretty easy to test for that).
So, should this work?
The standard solution to this problem is using the separating axis theorem (SAT). Given two convex polygons, A and B, the algorithm basically goes like this:
for each normal N of the edges of A and B
intervalA = [min, max] of projecting A on N
intervalB = [min, max] of projecting B on N
if intervalA doesn't overlap intervalB
return did not collide
return collided
I did something similar to compute polygon intersections, namely finding if a vertex sits within a given polygon.
Your algorithm is sound, and indeed does not work for concave polys. The line representation you chose is also problematic at slopes approaching infinity. I chose to use a couple of vectors for mine, one for the line direction, and one for a reference point on the line. From these, I can easily derive a parameterized equation of the line, and use that in various ways to find intersections with other shapes.
P = S + t * D
Any point P of the line can be caracterized by its coordinate t on the the line, given the above relation, where S is the reference point, and D the direction vector.
This representation lets you easily define which parts of the plane is the positive and the negative one (ie. above and below the line), thanks to the direction orientation. Now, any region of the plane can be defined as an intersection of several lines' negative or positive subplanes. So your "point within polygon" algorithm could be slightly changed to use that representation, with the added constraint of all the direction pointing clockwise, and testing for the point being in the negative subplane of all the lines (so you don't need the centre of the polygon anymore).
The formula to compute the side of a point wrt a line I used is the following:
(xs - xp) * yd - (ys - yp) * xd
The slope issue appears here when point P is close to S.
That representation can be computed using the edge vertices, but in order to have correct subplanes, you must keep your vertices in your polygon in condecutive orders.
For concave polygons, the problem is a bit more complicated: briefly, you have to test that the point is between two consecutive convex edges. This can be achieved by checking the coordinate of the point on the edge when projected on it, and ensuring it stands between 0 and length(edge) (assuming that the direction is normalized). Note that it boils down to check if the point belongs to a triangle within the polygon.
I know the distance to various points on a plane, as it is being viewed from an angle. I want to find the equation for this plane from just that information (5 to 15 different points, as many as necessary).
I will later use the equation for the plane to estimate what the distance to the plane should be at different points; in order to prove that it is roughly flat.
Unfortunately, a google search doesn't bring much up. :(
If you, indeed, know distances and not coordinates, then it is ill-posed problem - there is infinite number of planes that will have points with any number of given distances from origin.
This is easy to verify. Let's take shortest distance D0, from set of given distances {D0..DN-1} , and construct a plane with normal vector {D0,0,0} (vector of length D0 along x-axis). For each of remaining lengths we now have infinite number of points that will lie in this plane (forming circles in-plane around (D0,0,0) point). Moreover, we can rotate all vectors by an arbitrary angle and get a new plane.
Here is simple picture in 2D (distances to a line; it's simpler to draw ;) ).
As we can see, there are TWO points on the line for each distance D1..DN-1 > D0 - one is shown for D1 and D2, and the two other for these distances would be placed in 4th quadrant (+x, -y). Moreover, we can rotate our line around origin by an arbitrary angle and still satisfy given distances.
I'm going to skip over the process of finding the best fit plane, it's been handled in some other answers, and talk about something else.
"Prove" takes us into statistical inference. The way this is done is you make a formal hypothesis "the surface is flat" and then see if the data supports rejecting this hypothesis at some confidence level.
So you can wind up saying "I'm not even 1% sure that the surface isn't flat" -- but you can't ever prove that it's flat.
Geometry? Sounds like a job for math.SE! What form will the equation take? Will it be a plane?
I will assume you want an accurate solution.
Find the absolute positions with geometry
Make a best fit regression line in C++ in 2 of the 3 dimensions.