Recently I develop a VR project so need use gyroscope,here is a code which I found in unity manual:
// The Gyroscope is right-handed. Unity is left handed.
// Make the necessary change to the camera.
void GyroModifyCamera()
{
transform.rotation = GyroToUnity(Input.gyro.attitude);
}
private static Quaternion GyroToUnity(Quaternion q)
{
return new Quaternion(q.x, q.y, -q.z, -q.w);
}
Sorry for m poor math and English, can anyone give me some guide to explain the meaning of GyroToUnity function?
The gyro Input.gyro.attitude sensor value is returned in Right-Handed coordinates but Unity uses the Left-Handed coordinates system. You can read about about both coordinate system here.
A simple Image that illustrates the difference:
The GyroToUnity function is simply used to do conversion from Gyro(Right-Handed coordinates) to Camera (Left-Handed coordinates). It looks like it is flipping the direction of the up/down and left/right values from the Gyro sensor when the device is moving. After it is flipped, the new flipped value is returned and then assigned to the camera.
This is where the conversion/flipping is done:
return new Quaternion(q.x, q.y, -q.z, -q.w);
Hence the -q.z and -q.w. The minus sign is used to flip the values.
What happens if the conversion is performed or if the GyroToUnity function is not used?
If the device is attached to your face and you move your head up, the camera would move down and vice-versa. If you move it right, the camera would move left and vice-versa. This is supposed to be doing the opposite. That's why that function is used.
The easiest way to see what's happening is if you try it yourself. Bypass the GyroToUnity function then test it. You will see the difference.
void GyroModifyCamera()
{
transform.rotation = Input.gyro.attitude;
}
Now, compare it with the original version of the code:
void GyroModifyCamera()
{
transform.rotation = GyroToUnity(Input.gyro.attitude);
}
I am trying to minimize the difference between sets of square markers in 3d space with a set of unknown parameters.
I have a model set of these square markers (represented by 3d position and rotation) which should at the end of optimization match up with a set of observed square markers.
I am using Levenberg–Marquardt to optimize the set of unknown parameters, these parameters will alter the position and rotation of the model 3d markers until they match (more or less) with the observed 3d marker positions.
The observed 3d markers come from a computer vision marker detection algorithm. It gives the id of the markers seen in each frame and the transformation from the camera of each marker (using Coplanar posit). Each 'frame' would only be able to see a small number of markers in the total set of markers, there will also be inaccuracies in the transformation.
I have thought of how to construct my minimization function and I thought to try to compare the relative rotations and minimize the difference between the rotations in each iteration of the LM optimisation.
Essentially:
foreach (Marker m1 in markers)
{
foreach (Marker m2 in markers)
{
Vector3 eulerRotation = getRotation(m1, m2);
ObservedMarker observed1 = getMatchingObserved(m1);
ObservedMarker observed2 = getMatchingObserved(m2);
Vector3 eulerRotationObserved = getRotation(observed1, observed2);
double diffX = Math.Abs(eulerRotation.X - eulerRotationObserved.X);
double diffY = Math.Abs(eulerRotation.Y - eulerRotationObserved.Y);
double diffZ = Math.Abs(eulerRotation.Z - eulerRotationObserved.Z);
}
}
Where diffX, diffY and diffZ are the values to be minimized.
I am using the following to calculate the angles:
Vector3 axis = Vector3.Cross(getNormal(m1), getNormal(m2));
axis.Normalize();
double angle = Math.Acos(Vector3.Dot(getNormal(m1), getNormal(m2)));
Vector3 modelRotation = calculateEulerAngle(axis, angle);
getNormal(Marker m) calculates the normal to the plane that the square marker lies on.
I am sure I am doing something wrong here though. Throwing this all into the LM optimiser (I am using ALGLib) doesn't seem to do anything, it goes through 1 iteration and finishes without changing any of the unknown parameters (initially all 0).
I am thinking that something is wrong with the function I am trying to minimize over. It seems sometimes the angle calculated (3rd line) returns NaN (I am currently setting this case to return diffX, diffY, diffZ as 0). Is it even valid to compare the euler angles as above?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Further information:
Program is written in C#, I am using XNA as well.
The model markers are represented by its four corners in 3D coords
All the model markers are in the same coordinate space.
Observed markers are the four corners as translations from the camera position in camera coordinate space
If m1 and m2 markers are the same marker id or if either m1 or m2 is not observed, I set all the diffs to 0 (no difference).
At first I thought this might be a typo, but then I realized that this could be a bug, having been a victim of similar cases myself in the past.
Shouldn't diffY and diffZ be:
double diffY = Math.Abs(eulerRotation.Y - eulerRotationObserved.Y);
double diffZ = Math.Abs(eulerRotation.Z - eulerRotationObserved.Z);
I don't have enough reputation to post this as a comment, hence posting it as an answer!
Any luck with this? Is it correct to assume that you want to minimize the "sum" of all diffs over all marker combinations? I think if you want to use LM you should not use Math.Abs.
One alternative would be to formulate your objective function manually and use another optimizer. I have recently ported two non-linear optimizers to C# which do not even require you to compute derivatives:
COBYLA2, supports non-linear constraints but require more iterations.
BOBYQA, limited to variable bounds constraints, but provides a considerable more efficient iteration scheme.
Let's say I have a data structure like the following:
Camera {
double x, y, z
/** ideally the camera angle is positioned to aim at the 0,0,0 point */
double angleX, angleY, angleZ;
}
SomePointIn3DSpace {
double x, y, z
}
ScreenData {
/** Convert from some point 3d space to 2d space, end up with x, y */
int x_screenPositionOfPt, y_screenPositionOfPt
double zFar = 100;
int width=640, height=480
}
...
Without screen clipping or much of anything else, how would I calculate the screen x,y position of some point given some 3d point in space. I want to project that 3d point onto the 2d screen.
Camera.x = 0
Camera.y = 10;
Camera.z = -10;
/** ideally, I want the camera to point at the ground at 3d space 0,0,0 */
Camera.angleX = ???;
Camera.angleY = ????
Camera.angleZ = ????;
SomePointIn3DSpace.x = 5;
SomePointIn3DSpace.y = 5;
SomePointIn3DSpace.z = 5;
ScreenData.x and y is the screen x position of the 3d point in space. How do I calculate those values?
I could possibly use the equations found here, but I don't understand how the screen width/height comes into play. Also, I don't understand in the wiki entry what is the viewer's position vers the camera position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_projection
The 'way it's done' is to use homogenous transformations and coordinates. You take a point in space and:
Position it relative to the camera using the model matrix.
Project it either orthographically or in perspective using the projection matrix.
Apply the viewport trnasformation to place it on the screen.
This gets pretty vague, but I'll try and cover the important bits and leave some of it to you. I assume you understand the basics of matrix math :).
Homogenous Vectors, Points, Transformations
In 3D, a homogenous point would be a column matrix of the form [x, y, z, 1]. The final component is 'w', a scaling factor, which for vectors is 0: this has the effect that you can't translate vectors, which is mathematically correct. We won't go there, we're talking points.
Homogenous transformations are 4x4 matrices, used because they allow translation to be represented as a matrix multiplication, rather than an addition, which is nice and quick for your videocard. Also convenient because we can represent successive transformations by multiplying them together. We apply transformations to points by performing transformation * point.
There are 3 primary homogeneous transformations:
Translation,
Rotation, and
Scaling.
There are others, notably the 'look at' transformation, which are worth exploring. However, I just wanted to give a brief list and a few links. Successive application of moving, scaling and rotating applied to points is collectively the model transformation matrix, and places them in the scene, relative to the camera. It's important to realise what we're doing is akin to moving objects around the camera, not the other way around.
Orthographic and Perspective
To transform from world coordinates into screen coordinates, you would first use a projection matrix, which commonly, come in two flavors:
Orthographic, commonly used for 2D and CAD.
Perspective, good for games and 3D environments.
An orthographic projection matrix is constructed as follows:
Where parameters include:
Top: The Y coordinate of the top edge of visible space.
Bottom: The Y coordinate of the bottom edge of the visible space.
Left: The X coordinate of the left edge of the visible space.
Right: The X coordinate of the right edge of the visible space.
I think that's pretty simple. What you establish is an area of space that is going to appear on the screen, which you can clip against. It's simple here, because the area of space visible is a rectangle. Clipping in perspective is more complicated because the area which appears on screen or the viewing volume, is a frustrum.
If you're having a hard time with the wikipedia on perspective projection, Here's the code to build a suitable matrix, courtesy of geeks3D
void BuildPerspProjMat(float *m, float fov, float aspect,
float znear, float zfar)
{
float xymax = znear * tan(fov * PI_OVER_360);
float ymin = -xymax;
float xmin = -xymax;
float width = xymax - xmin;
float height = xymax - ymin;
float depth = zfar - znear;
float q = -(zfar + znear) / depth;
float qn = -2 * (zfar * znear) / depth;
float w = 2 * znear / width;
w = w / aspect;
float h = 2 * znear / height;
m[0] = w;
m[1] = 0;
m[2] = 0;
m[3] = 0;
m[4] = 0;
m[5] = h;
m[6] = 0;
m[7] = 0;
m[8] = 0;
m[9] = 0;
m[10] = q;
m[11] = -1;
m[12] = 0;
m[13] = 0;
m[14] = qn;
m[15] = 0;
}
Variables are:
fov: Field of view, pi/4 radians is a good value.
aspect: Ratio of height to width.
znear, zfar: used for clipping, I'll ignore these.
and the matrix generated is column major, indexed as follows in the above code:
0 4 8 12
1 5 9 13
2 6 10 14
3 7 11 15
Viewport Transformation, Screen Coordinates
Both of these transformations require another matrix matrix to put things in screen coordinates, called the viewport transformation. That's described here, I won't cover it (it's dead simple).
Thus, for a point p, we would:
Perform model transformation matrix * p, resulting in pm.
Perform projection matrix * pm, resulting in pp.
Clipping pp against the viewing volume.
Perform viewport transformation matrix * pp, resulting is ps: point on screen.
Summary
I hope that covers most of it. There are holes in the above and it's vague in places, post any questions below. This subject is usually worthy of a whole chapter in a textbook, I've done my best to distill the process, hopefully to your advantage!
I linked to this above, but I strongly suggest you read this, and download the binary. It's an excellent tool to further your understanding of theses transformations and how it gets points on the screen:
http://www.songho.ca/opengl/gl_transform.html
As far as actual work, you'll need to implement a 4x4 matrix class for homogeneous transformations as well as a homogeneous point class you can multiply against it to apply transformations (remember, [x, y, z, 1]). You'll need to generate the transformations as described above and in the links. It's not all that difficult once you understand the procedure. Best of luck :).
#BerlinBrown just as a general comment, you ought not to store your camera rotation as X,Y,Z angles, as this can lead to an ambiguity.
For instance, x=60degrees is the same as -300 degrees. When using x,y and z the number of ambiguous possibilities are very high.
Instead, try using two points in 3D space, x1,y1,z1 for camera location and x2,y2,z2 for camera "target". The angles can be backward computed to/from the location/target but in my opinion this is not recommended. Using a camera location/target allows you to construct a "LookAt" vector which is a unit vector in the direction of the camera (v'). From this you can also construct a LookAt matrix which is a 4x4 matrix used to project objects in 3D space to pixels in 2D space.
Please see this related question, where I discuss how to compute a vector R, which is in the plane orthogonal to the camera.
Given a vector of your camera to target, v = xi, yj, zk
Normalise the vector, v' = xi, yj, zk / sqrt(xi^2 + yj^2 + zk^2)
Let U = global world up vector u = 0, 0, 1
Then we can compute R = Horizontal Vector that is parallel to the camera's view direction R = v' ^ U,
where ^ is the cross product, given by
a ^ b = (a2b3 - a3b2)i + (a3b1 - a1b3)j + (a1b2 - a2b1)k
This will give you a vector that looks like this.
This could be of use for your question, as once you have the LookAt Vector v', the orthogonal vector R you can start to project from the point in 3D space onto the camera's plane.
Basically all these 3D manipulation problems boil down to transforming a point in world space to local space, where the local x,y,z axes are in orientation with the camera. Does that make sense? So if you have a point, Q=x,y,z and you know R and v' (camera axes) then you can project it to the "screen" using simple vector manipulations. The angles involved can be found out using the dot product operator on Vectors.
Following the wikipedia, first calculate "d":
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/6/0/b/60b64ec331ba2493a2b93e8829e864b6.png
In order to do this, build up those matrices in your code. The mappings from your examples to their variables:
θ = Camera.angle*
a = SomePointIn3DSpace
c = Camera.x | y | z
Or, just do the equations separately without using matrices, your choice:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/1/c/8/1c89722619b756d05adb4ea38ee6f62b.png
Now we calculate "b", a 2D point:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/2/5/6/256a0e12b8e6cc7cd71fa9495c0c3668.png
In this case ex and ey are the viewer's position, I believe in most graphics systems half the screen size (0.5) is used to make (0, 0) the center of the screen by default, but you could use any value (play around). ez is where the field of view comes into play. That's the one thing you were missing. Choose a fov angle and calculate ez as:
ez = 1 / tan(fov / 2)
Finally, to get bx and by to actual pixels, you have to scale by a factor related to the screen size. For example, if b maps from (0, 0) to (1, 1) you could just scale x by 1920 and y by 1080 for a 1920 x 1080 display. That way any screen size will show the same thing. There are of course many other factors involved in an actual 3D graphics system but this is the basic version.
Converting points in 3D-space into a 2D point on a screen is simply made by using a matrix. Use a matrix to calculate the screen position of your point, this saves you a lot of work.
When working with cameras you should consider using a look-at-matrix and multiply the look at matrix with your projection matrix.
Assuming the camera is at (0, 0, 0) and pointed straight ahead, the equations would be:
ScreenData.x = SomePointIn3DSpace.x / SomePointIn3DSpace.z * constant;
ScreenData.y = SomePointIn3DSpace.y / SomePointIn3DSpace.z * constant;
where "constant" is some positive value. Setting it to the screen width in pixels usually gives good results. If you set it higher then the scene will look more "zoomed-in", and vice-versa.
If you want the camera to be at a different position or angle, then you will need to move and rotate the scene so that the camera is at (0, 0, 0) and pointed straight ahead, and then you can use the equations above.
You are basically computing the point of intersection between a line that goes through the camera and the 3D point, and a vertical plane that is floating a little bit in front of the camera.
You might be interested in just seeing how GLUT does it behind the scenes. All of these methods have similar documentation that shows the math that goes into them.
The three first lectures from UCSD might be very helful, and contain several illustrations on this topic, which as far as I can see is what you are really after.
Run it thru a ray tracer:
Ray Tracer in C# - Some of the objects he has will look familiar to you ;-)
And just for kicks a LINQ version.
I'm not sure what the greater purpose of your app is (you should tell us, it might spark better ideas), but while it is clear that projection and ray tracing are different problem sets, they have a ton of overlap.
If your app is just trying to draw the entire scene, this would be great.
Solving problem #1: Obscured points won't be projected.
Solution: Though I didn't see anything about opacity or transparency on the blog page, you could probably add these properties and code to process one ray that bounced off (as normal) and one that continued on (for the 'transparency').
Solving problem #2: Projecting a single pixel will require a costly full-image tracing of all pixels.
Obviously if you just want to draw the objects, use the ray tracer for what it's for! But if you want to look up thousands of pixels in the image, from random parts of random objects (why?), doing a full ray-trace for each request would be a huge performance dog.
Fortunately, with more tweaking of his code, you might be able to do one ray-tracing up front (with transparancy), and cache the results until the objects change.
If you're not familiar to ray tracing, read the blog entry - I think it explains how things really work backwards from each 2D pixel, to the objects, then the lights, which determines the pixel value.
You can add code so as intersections with objects are made, you are building lists indexed by intersected points of the objects, with the item being the current 2d pixel being traced.
Then when you want to project a point, go to that object's list, find the nearest point to the one you want to project, and look up the 2d pixel you care about. The math would be far more minimal than the equations in your articles. Unfortunately, using for example a dictionary of your object+point structure mapping to 2d pixels, I am not sure how to find the closest point on an object without running through the entire list of mapped points. Although that wouldn't be the slowest thing in the world and you could probably figure it out, I just don't have the time to think about it. Anyone?
good luck!
"Also, I don't understand in the wiki entry what is the viewer's position vers the camera position" ... I'm 99% sure this is the same thing.
You want to transform your scene with a matrix similar to OpenGL's gluLookAt and then calculate the projection using a projection matrix similar to OpenGL's gluPerspective.
You could try to just calculate the matrices and do the multiplication in software.
I'm developing a 3D spaceshooter in XNA as a school project (basically Asteroids in 3D with power-ups), and have been working to implement roll, pitch, and yaw with respect to the ship's local axes. (I should emphasize: the rotation is not with respect to the absolute/world x, y, and z axes.) Sadly, I've been struggling with this for the last few weeks. Google and my neolithic monkey brain have failed me; maybe you folks can help!
Here's my setup:
Via keyboard input, I have the following variables ready to go:
yawRadians, which stores the desired yaw away from the ship's initial
position
pitchRadians, which stores the desired pitch away from the
ship's initial position
rollRadians, which stores the desired roll
away from the ship's initial position
The ship also maintains its own Front, Back, Right, Left, Top and Bottom unit vectors, which are used both for the rotations and also for propulsion. (Different keys will propel the ship toward the Front, Back, etc. This part is working great.)
Ultimately, I generate the rotation matrix mShipRotation, representing all of the ship's rotations, which is passed to the ship's draw method.
The problem I have is with the rotations themselves. Different solutions I've tried have had differing results. Here's what I've gone with so far:
Method 1 – Yaw, Pitch, and Roll relative to the absolute/world x, y, and z axes
At first, I naively tried using the following in my ship's Update method:
qYawPitchRoll = Quaternion.CreateFromYawPitchRoll(yawRadians, pitchRadians, rollRadians);
vFront = Vector3.Transform(vOriginalFront, qYawPitchRoll);
vBack = -1 * vFront;
vRight = Vector3.Transform(vOriginalRight, qYawPitchRoll);
vLeft = -1 * vRight;
vTop = Vector3.Transform(vOriginalTop, qYawPitchRoll);
vBottom = -1 * vTop;
mShipRotation = Matrix.CreateFromQuaternion(qYawPitchRoll);
(vOriginalFront, vOriginalRight, and vOriginalTop just store the ship's initial orientation.)
The above actually works without any errors, except that the rotations are always with respect to the x, y, and z axes, and not with respect to the ship's Front/Back/Right/Left/Top/Bottom vectors. This results in the ship not always yawing and pitching as expected. (Specifically, yawing degenerates to rolling if you have pitched up so the ship is pointing to the top. This makes sense, as yawing in this solution is just rotating about the world up axis.)
I heard about the Quarternion.CreateFromAxisAngle method, which sounded perfect. I could just combine three Quaternion rotations, one around each of the ship's local axis. What could go wrong?
Method 2 – Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle
Here's the second code snippet I used in my ship's Update method:
qPitch = Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle(vRight, pitchRadians);
qYaw = Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle(vTop, yawRadians);
qRoll = Quaternion.CreateFromAxisAngle(vFront, rollRadians);
qPitchYawAndRoll = Quaternion.Concatenate(Quaternion.Concatenate(qPitch, qYaw), qRoll);
vFront = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalFront, qPitchYawAndRoll));
vBack = -1 * vFront;
vRight = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalRight, qPitchYawAndRoll));
vLeft = -1 * vRight;
vTop = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalTop, qPitchYawAndRoll));
vBottom = -1 * vTop;
mShipRotation = Matrix.CreateFromQuaternion(qPitchYawAndRoll);
The above works perfectly if I only do one rotation at a time (yaw, pitch, or roll), but if I combine more than one rotation simultaneously, the ship begins to wildly spin and point in many different directions, getting more and more warped until it disappears entirely.
I've tried variants of the above where I first apply the Pitch to all the vectors, then the Yaw, then the Roll, but no luck.
I also tried it using Matrices directly, despite concerns of Gimbal Lock:
Method 3: Matrices
mShipRotation = Matrix.Identity;
mShipRotation *= Matrix.CreateFromAxisAngle(vRight, pitchRadians);
mShipRotation *= Matrix.CreateFromAxisAngle(vFront, rollRadians);
mShipRotation *= Matrix.CreateFromAxisAngle(vTop, yawRadians);
vFront = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalFront, mShipRotation));
vBack = -1 * vFront;
vRight = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalRight, mShipRotation));
vLeft = -1 * vRight;
vTop = Vector3.Normalize(Vector3.Transform(vOriginalTop, mShipRotation));
vBottom = -1 * vTop;
No luck; I got the same behavior. One rotation at a time is okay, but rotating about multiple axes resulted in the same bizarre spinning behavior.
After some brilliant debugging (read as: blindly outputting variables to the console), I noticed that the Front/Right/Top vectors were slowly, over time, becoming less orthogonal to one another. I added Normalization to vectors basically every step of the way, and also tried computing new vectors based on cross products, to try to ensure that they always remained perpendicular to one another, but even then they were not perfectly orthogonal. I'm guessing this is due to floating point math not being perfectly precise.
Note that I regenerate the mShipRotation matrix every Update method, so it cannot be accumulating drift or inaccuracies directly. I think that applying multiple Quarternion rotations may be accumulating error (as I can do one rotation just fine), but my attempts to fix it have not worked.
In short:
I can pitch/roll/yaw relative to the world axes x, y, and z just
fine. It's just not what the player would expect to happen as the
rolling/pitching/yawing is not relative to the ship, but to the
world.
I can roll, pitch, or yaw around the ship's local axes (Front/Back/Top/Bottom/Left/Right) just fine, but only one at a time. Any combination of them will cause the ship to spiral and deform rapidly.
I've tried Quaternions and Matrices. I've tried suggestions I've found in various forums, but ultimately do not wind up with a working solution. Often people recommend using Quaternion.CreateFromYawPitchRoll, not really realizing that the intent is to have a ship rotate about its own (constantly changing) axes, and not the (fixed) world axes.
Any ideas? Given a situation where you are given the roll, pitch, and yaw about a ship's front, right, and top vectors, how would you go about creating the rotation matrix?
You seem to be applying your overall angles (yawRadians, pitchRadians, rollRadians) to your local axis in your methods 2 & 3. These values are married to the world axis and have no meaning in local space. The root of your problem is wanting to hang onto the 3 angles.
In local space, use an angular amount that is the amount you want to rotate between frames. If you only pitched up 0.002f radians since the last frame, that would be what you would use when you rotate around the vRight axis.
This will screw with your overall angle values (yawRadians, pitchRadians, & rollRadians) and render them useless but most folks who stick with 3d programming quickly drop the angle approach to storing the orientation anyway.
Simply rotate your matrix or quaternion little by little each frame around your local axis and store the orientation in that structure (the quat or matrix) instead of the 3 angles.
There is no worries about gimbal lock when you are rotating a matrix about local axis like this. You would have to have 90 degree rotations between frames to bring that into the picture.
If you want to avoid error accumulation use a quat to store the orientation and normalize it each frame. Then the matrix you send to the effect will be made each frame from the quat and will be ortho-normal. Even if you didn't use a quat and stored your orientation in a matrix it would take hours or days to accumulate enough error to be visually noticeable.
This blog might help: http://stevehazen.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/matrix-basics-how-to-step-away-from-storing-an-orientation-as-3-angles/
I think this might be what you're looking for:
http://forums.create.msdn.com/forums/t/33807.aspx
I'm pretty sure that CreateFromAxisAngle is the way to go.
With reference to this programming game I am currently building.
I wrote the below method to move (translate) a canvas to a specific distance and according to its current angle:
private void MoveBot(double pix, MoveDirection dir)
{
if (dir == MoveDirection.Forward)
{
Animator_Body_X.To = Math.Sin(HeadingRadians) * pix;
Animator_Body_Y.To = ((Math.Cos(HeadingRadians) * pix) * -1);
}
else
{
Animator_Body_X.To = ((Math.Sin(HeadingRadians) * pix) * -1);
Animator_Body_Y.To = Math.Cos(HeadingRadians) * pix;
}
Animator_Body_X.To += Translate_Body.X;
Animator_Body_Y.To += Translate_Body.Y;
Animator_Body_X.From = Translate_Body.X;
Translate_Body.BeginAnimation(TranslateTransform.XProperty, Animator_Body_X);
Animator_Body_Y.From = Translate_Body.Y;
Translate_Body.BeginAnimation(TranslateTransform.YProperty, Animator_Body_Y);
TriggerCallback();
}
One of the parameters it accepts is a number of pixels that should be covered when translating.
As regards the above code, Animator_Body_X and Animator_Body_Y are of type DoubleAnimation, which are then applied to the robot's TranslateTransform object: Translate_Body
The problem that I am facing is that the Robot (which is a canvas) is moving at a different speed according to the inputted distance. Thus, the longer the distance, the faster the robot moves! So to put you into perspective, if the inputted distance is 20, the robot moves fairly slow, but if the inputted distance is 800, it literally shoots off the screen.
I need to make this speed constant, irrelevant of the inputted distance.
I think I need to tweak some of the Animator_Body_X and Animator_Body_Y properties in according to the inputted distance, but I don't know what to tweak exactly (I think some Math has to be done as well).
Here is a list of the DoubleAnimation properties that maybe you will want to take a look at to figure this out.
Is there are reason you're using DoubleAnimation? DoubleAnimation is designed to take a value from A to B over a specific time period using linear interpolation acceleration/deceleration at the start/end of that period if required (which is why it's "faster" for longer distance.. it has further to go in the same time!). By the looks of things what you are trying to do is move something a fixed distance each "frame" depending on what direction it is facing? That doesn't seem to fit to me.
You could calculate the length of the animation, depending on the distance, so the length is longer for longer distances, then the item is always moving at the same "speed". To me, it makes more sense to just move the item yourself though. You can calculate a objects velocity based on your angle criteria, then each "frame" you can manually move the item as far as it needs to go based on that velocity. With this method you could also easily apply friction etc. to the velocity if required.
The math you have to do is: velocity*time=distance
So, to keep the speed constant you have to change the animation's duration:
double pixelsPerSecond = 5;
animation.Duration = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(distance/pixelsPerSecond);
BTW, I don't think animations are the best solution for moving your robots.