Develop Reference

Rotating cubes to face the origin using Quaternions

I'm in the process of setting up a relatively simple voxel-based world for a game. The high level idea is to first generate voxel locations following a fibonacci grid, then rotate the cubes such that the outer surface of the fibonacci grid resembles a sphere, and finally size the cubes such that they roughly cover the surface of the sphere (overlap is fine). See below the code for generating the voxels along the fibonacci grid:
public static Voxel[] CreateInitialVoxels(int numberOfPoints, int radius)
{
float goldenRatio = (1 + Mathf.Sqrt(5)) / 2;
Voxel[] voxels = new Voxel[numberOfPoints];
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfPoints; i++)
{
float n = i - numberOfPoints / 2; // Center at zero
float theta = 2 * Mathf.PI * n / goldenRatio;
float phi = (Mathf.PI / 2) + Mathf.Asin(2 * n / numberOfPoints);
voxels[i] = new Voxel(new Location(theta, phi, radius));
}
return voxels;
}
This generates a sphere that looks roughly like a staircase
So, my current approach to get this looking a bit more spherical is to basically rotate each cube in each pair of axes, then combine all of the rotations:
private void DrawVoxel(Voxel voxel, GameObject voxelContainer)
{
GameObject voxelObject = Instantiate<GameObject>(GetVoxelPrefab());
voxelObject.transform.position = voxel.location.cartesianCoordinates;
voxelObject.transform.parent = voxelContainer.transform;
Vector3 norm = voxel.location.cartesianCoordinates.normalized;
float xyRotationDegree = Mathf.Atan(norm.y / norm.x) * (180 / Mathf.PI);
float zxRotationDegree = Mathf.Atan(norm.z / norm.x) * (180 / Mathf.PI);
float yzRotationDegree = Mathf.Atan(norm.z / norm.y) * (180 / Mathf.PI);
Quaternion xyRotation = Quaternion.AngleAxis(xyRotationDegree, new Vector3(0, 0, 1));
Quaternion zxRotation = Quaternion.AngleAxis(zxRotationDegree, new Vector3(0, 1, 0));
Quaternion yzRotation = Quaternion.AngleAxis(yzRotationDegree, new Vector3(1, 0, 0));
voxelObject.transform.rotation = zxRotation * yzRotation * xyRotation;
}
The primary thing that I am getting caught on is that each of these rotations seems to work fine for me in isolation, but when combining them things tend to go a bit haywire (pictures below) I'm not sure exactly what the issue is. My best guess is that I've made some sign/rotation mismatch in my rotations so they don't combine right. I can get two working, but never all three together.
Above are the pictures of one and two successful rotations, followed by the error mode when I attempt to combine them. Any help either on telling me that the approach I'm following is too convoluted, or helping me understand what the right way to combine these rotations would be would be very helpful. Cartesian coordinate conversion below for reference.
[System.Serializable]
public struct Location
{
public float theta, phi, r;
public Vector3 polarCoordinates;
public float x, y, z;
public Vector3 cartesianCoordinates;
public Location(float theta, float phi, float r)
{
this.theta = theta;
this.phi = phi;
this.r= r;
this.polarCoordinates = new Vector3(theta, phi, r);
this.x = r * Mathf.Sin(phi) * Mathf.Cos(theta);
this.y = r * Mathf.Sin(phi) * Mathf.Sin(theta);
this.z = r * Mathf.Cos(phi);
this.cartesianCoordinates = new Vector3(x, y, z);
}
}

I managed to find a solution to this problem, though it's still not clear to me what the issue with the above code is.
Unity has an extremely handy function called Quaternion.FromToRotation that will generate the appropriate rotation if you simply pass in the appropriate destination vector.
In my case I was able to just do:
voxelObject.transform.rotation = Quaternion.FromToRotation(new Vector3(0, 0, 1), voxel.location.cartesianCoordinates);

Finding the true anomaly from state vectors

I'm attempting to convert from state vectors (position and speed) into Kepler elements, however I'm running into problems where a negative velocity or position will give me wrong results when trying to calculate true anomaly.
Here are the different ways I'm trying to calculate the True Anomaly:
/// <summary>
/// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_anomaly#From_state_vectors
/// </summary>
public static double TrueAnomaly(Vector4 eccentVector, Vector4 position, Vector4 velocity)
{
var dotEccPos = Vector4.Dot(eccentVector, position);
var talen = eccentVector.Length() * position.Length();
talen = dotEccPos / talen;
talen = GMath.Clamp(talen, -1, 1);
var trueAnomoly = Math.Acos(talen);
if (Vector4.Dot(position, velocity) < 0)
trueAnomoly = Math.PI * 2 - trueAnomoly;
return trueAnomoly;
}
//sgp = standard gravitational parameter
public static double TrueAnomaly(double sgp, Vector4 position, Vector4 velocity)
{
var H = Vector4.Cross(position, velocity).Length();
var R = position.Length();
var q = Vector4.Dot(position, velocity); // dot product of r*v
var TAx = H * H / (R * sgp) - 1;
var TAy = H * q / (R * sgp);
var TA = Math.Atan2(TAy, TAx);
return TA;
}
public static double TrueAnomalyFromEccentricAnomaly(double eccentricity, double eccentricAnomaly)
{
var x = Math.Sqrt(1 - Math.Pow(eccentricity, 2)) * Math.Sin(eccentricAnomaly);
var y = Math.Cos(eccentricAnomaly) - eccentricity;
return Math.Atan2(x, y);
}
public static double TrueAnomalyFromEccentricAnomaly2(double eccentricity, double eccentricAnomaly)
{
var x = Math.Cos(eccentricAnomaly) - eccentricity;
var y = 1 - eccentricity * Math.Cos(eccentricAnomaly);
return Math.Acos(x / y);
}
Edit: another way of doing it which Spectre pointed out:
public static double TrueAnomaly(Vector4 position, double loP)
{
return Math.Atan2(position.Y, position.X) - loP;
}
Positions are all relative to the parent body.
These functions all agree if position.x, position.y and velocity.y are all positive.
How do I fix these so that I get a consistent results when position and velocity are negitive?
Just to clarify: My angles appear to be sort of correct, just pointing in the wrong quadrant depending on the position and or velocity vectors.
Yeah so I was wrong, the above all do return the correct values after all.
So I found an edge case where most of the above calculations fail.
Given position and velocity:
pos = new Vector4() { X = -0.208994076275941, Y = 0.955838328099748 };
vel = new Vector4() { X = -2.1678187689294E-07, Y = -7.93096769486992E-08 };
I get some odd results, ie ~ -31.1 degrees, when I think it should return ` 31.1 (non negative). one of them returns ~ 328.8.
However testing with this position and velocity the results apear to be ok:
pos = new Vector4() { X = -0.25, Y = 0.25 };
vel = new Vector4() { X = Distance.KmToAU(-25), Y = Distance.KmToAU(-25) };
See my answer for extra code on how I'm testing and the math I'm using for some of the other variables.
I'm going around in circles on this one. this is a result of a bug in my existing code that shows up under some conditions but not others.
I guess the real question now is WHY am I getting different results with position/velocity above that don't match to my expectations or each other?

Assuming 2D case... I am doing this differently:
compute radius of semi axises and rotation
so you need to remember whole orbit and find 2 most distant points on it that is major axis a. The minor axis b usually is 90 deg from major axis but to be sure just fins 2 perpendicularly most distant points on your orbit to major axis. So now you got both semi axises. The initial rotation is computed from the major axis by atan2.
compute true anomaly E
so if center is x0,y0 (intersection of a,b or center point of both) initial rotation is ang0 (angle of a) and your point on orbit is x,y then:
E = atan2(y-y0,x-x0) - ang0
However in order to match Newton/D'Alembert physics to Kepler orbital parameters you need to boost the integration precision like I did here:
Is it possible to make realistic n-body solar system simulation in matter of size and mass?
see the [Edit3] Improving Newton D'ALembert integration precision even more in there.
For more info and equations see:
Solving Kepler's equation
[Edit1] so you want to compute V I see it like this:
As you got your coordinates relative to parent you can assume they are already in focal point centered so no need for x0,y0 anymore. Of coarse if you want high precision and have more than 2 bodies (focal mass + object + proximity object(s) like moons) then the parent mass will no longer be in focal point of orbit but close to it ... and to remedy you need to use real focal point position so x0,y0 again... So how to do it:
compute center point (cx,cy) and a,b semi axises
so its the same as in previous text.
compute focal point (x0,y0) in orbit axis aligned coordinates
simple:
x0 = cx + sqrt( a^2 + b^2 );
y0 = cy;
initial angle ang0 of a
let xa,ya be the intersection of orbit and major axis a on the side with bigger speeds (near parent object focus). Then:
ang0 = atan2( ya-cy , xa-cx );
and finally the V fore any of yours x,y
V = atan2( y-y0 , x-x0 ) - ang0;

Ok so on further testing it appears my original calcs do all return the correct values, however when I was looking at the outputs I was not taking the LoP into account and basically not recognizing that 180 is essentially the same angle as -180.
(I was also looking at the output in radians and just didn't see what should have been obvious)
Long story short, I have a bug I thought was in this area of the code and got lost in the weeds.
Seems I was wrong above. see OP for edge case.
Here's some code I used to test these,
I used variations of the following inputs:
pos = new Vector4() { X = 0.25, Y = 0.25 };
vel = new Vector4() { X = Distance.KmToAU(-25), Y = Distance.KmToAU(25) };
And tested them with the following
double parentMass = 1.989e30;
double objMass = 2.2e+15;
double sgp = GameConstants.Science.GravitationalConstant * (parentMass + objMass) / 3.347928976e33;
Vector4 ev = OrbitMath.EccentricityVector(sgp, pos, vel);
double e = ev.Length();
double specificOrbitalEnergy = Math.Pow(vel.Length(), 2) * 0.5 - sgp / pos.Length();
double a = -sgp / (2 * specificOrbitalEnergy);
double ae = e * a;
double aop = Math.Atan2(ev.Y, ev.X);
double eccentricAnomaly = OrbitMath.GetEccentricAnomalyFromStateVectors(pos, a, ae, aop);
double aopD = Angle.ToDegrees(aop);
double directAngle = Math.Atan2(pos.Y, pos.X);
var θ1 = OrbitMath.TrueAnomaly(sgp, pos, vel);
var θ2 = OrbitMath.TrueAnomaly(ev, pos, vel);
var θ3 = OrbitMath.TrueAnomalyFromEccentricAnomaly(e, eccentricAnomaly);
var θ4 = OrbitMath.TrueAnomalyFromEccentricAnomaly2(e, eccentricAnomaly);
var θ5 = OrbitMath.TrueAnomaly(pos, aop);
double angleΔ = 0.0000001; //this is the "acceptable" amount of error, really only the TrueAnomalyFromEccentricAnomaly() calcs needed this.
Assert.AreEqual(0, Angle.DifferenceBetweenRadians(directAngle, aop - θ1), angleΔ);
Assert.AreEqual(0, Angle.DifferenceBetweenRadians(directAngle, aop - θ2), angleΔ);
Assert.AreEqual(0, Angle.DifferenceBetweenRadians(directAngle, aop - θ3), angleΔ);
Assert.AreEqual(0, Angle.DifferenceBetweenRadians(directAngle, aop - θ4), angleΔ);
Assert.AreEqual(0, Angle.DifferenceBetweenRadians(directAngle, aop - θ5), angleΔ);
and the following to compare the angles:
public static double DifferenceBetweenRadians(double a1, double a2)
{
return Math.PI - Math.Abs(Math.Abs(a1 - a2) - Math.PI);
}
And eccentricity Vector found thus:
public static Vector4 EccentricityVector(double sgp, Vector4 position, Vector4 velocity)
{
Vector4 angularMomentum = Vector4.Cross(position, velocity);
Vector4 foo1 = Vector4.Cross(velocity, angularMomentum) / sgp;
var foo2 = position / position.Length();
return foo1 - foo2;
}
And EccentricAnomaly:
public static double GetEccentricAnomalyFromStateVectors(Vector4 position, double a, double linierEccentricity, double aop)
{
var x = (position.X * Math.Cos(-aop)) - (position.Y * Math.Sin(-aop));
x = linierEccentricity + x;
double foo = GMath.Clamp(x / a, -1, 1); //because sometimes we were getting a floating point error that resulted in numbers infinatly smaller than -1
return Math.Acos(foo);
}
Thanks to Futurogogist and Spektre for their help.

I am assuming you are working in two dimensions?
Two dimensional vectors of position p and velocity v. The constant K is the the product of the gravitational constant and the mass of the gravity generating body. Calculate the eccentricity vector
eccVector = (dot(v, v)*p - dot(v, p)*v) / K - p / sqrt(dot(p, p));
eccentricity = sqrt(dot(eccVector, eccVector));
eccVector = eccVector / eccentricity;
b = { - eccVector.y, eccVector.x}; //unit vector perpendicular to eccVector
r = sqrt(dot(p, p));
cos_TA = dot(p, eccVector) / r; \\ cosine of true anomaly
sin_TA = dot(p, b) / r; \\ sine of true anomaly
if (sin_TA >= 0) {
trueAnomaly = arccos(cos_TA);
}
else if (sin_TA < 0){
trueAnomaly = 2*pi - arccos(cos_TA);
}

How to find some additional points on a line between two points in 3D?

Is there a function in C# which can give me all the points on a straight line between two points in 3D?
To calculate the distance between those two points, I use this:
public class Position {
public float x;
public float y;
public float z;
}
public void CalculateDistance(Position position1, Position position2, int mapId){
float deltaX = position1.x - position2.x;
float deltaY = position1.y - position2.y;
float deltaZ = position1.z - position2.z;
float distance = (float)Math.Sqrt(deltaX * deltaX + deltaY * deltaY + deltaZ * deltaZ);
Console.WriteLine("Distance is: " + distance);
}
Example coordinates:
Position pos1 = new Position();
pos1.x = 141.6586f;
pos1.y = 0.6852107f;
pos1.z = 153.2231f;
Position pos2 = new Position();
pos2.x = 142.336f;
pos2.y = 0.8685942f;
pos2.z = 130.8394f;
Let's say, the distance in line between those two 3d coordinates can be passed for 5 seconds. How can I print the current coordinate for every 1 second?

what you want to do is well described in this answer
And here is example of code how you can print your values:
var mx = pos2.x - pos1.x;
var my = pos2.y - pos1.y;
var mz = pos2.z - pos1.z;
for(var t=0; t < 10; t++) {
var x = pos1.x + mx * t;
var y = pos1.y + my * t;
var z = pos1.z + mz * t;
//TODO: use you 3D point
}
Hope this helps!

Eigen Point-to-Plane algorithm, return quaternions?

I am using Eigen to calculate the best fit of a set of points to a plane. What I need to do with this data, is then rotate the set of points so they lie flat, negating the rotation value.
My code is:
cv::Point2f plane_from_points(const std::vector<Vector3> & c)
{
// copy coordinates to matrix in Eigen format
size_t num_atoms = c.size();
Eigen::Matrix< Vector3::Scalar, Eigen::Dynamic, Eigen::Dynamic > coord(3, num_atoms);
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_atoms; ++i) coord.col(i) = c[i];
// calculate centroid
Vector3 centroid(coord.row(0).mean(), coord.row(1).mean(), coord.row(2).mean());
// subtract centroid
coord.row(0).array() -= centroid(0); coord.row(1).array() -= centroid(1); coord.row(2).array() -= centroid(2);
// we only need the left-singular matrix here
// http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/99299/best-fitting-plane-given-a-set-of-points
auto svd = coord.jacobiSvd(Eigen::ComputeThinU | Eigen::ComputeThinV);
Vector3 plane_normal = svd.matrixU().rightCols<1>();
float x = plane_normal[0];
float y = plane_normal[1];
float z = plane_normal[2];
float angle = atan2(x, z) * 180 / PI;
float angle2 = atan2(y, z) * 180 / PI;
cv::Point ret(angle, angle2);
return ret;
}
Then, in C#, I convert the angle values to a quaternion, to rotate my object:
public static Quaternion QuatFromEuler(double yaw, double pitch, double roll)
{
yaw = Deg2Rad(yaw);
pitch = Deg2Rad(pitch);
roll = Deg2Rad(roll);
double rollOver2 = roll * 0.5f;
double sinRollOver2 = (double)Math.Sin((double)rollOver2);
double cosRollOver2 = (double)Math.Cos((double)rollOver2);
double pitchOver2 = pitch * 0.5f;
double sinPitchOver2 = (double)Math.Sin((double)pitchOver2);
double cosPitchOver2 = (double)Math.Cos((double)pitchOver2);
double yawOver2 = yaw * 0.5f;
double sinYawOver2 = (double)Math.Sin((double)yawOver2);
double cosYawOver2 = (double)Math.Cos((double)yawOver2);
Quaternion result = new Quaternion();
result.W = cosYawOver2 * cosPitchOver2 * cosRollOver2 + sinYawOver2 * sinPitchOver2 * sinRollOver2;
result.X = cosYawOver2 * sinPitchOver2 * cosRollOver2 + sinYawOver2 * cosPitchOver2 * sinRollOver2;
result.Y = sinYawOver2 * cosPitchOver2 * cosRollOver2 - cosYawOver2 * sinPitchOver2 * sinRollOver2;
result.Z = cosYawOver2 * cosPitchOver2 * sinRollOver2 - sinYawOver2 * sinPitchOver2 * cosRollOver2;
return result;
}
This gives me:
angles: -177 -126
quat: -0.453834928533952,-0.890701198505913,-0.0233238317256566,0.0118840858439476
Which, when i apply it, looks nothing like it should. (I expect a roughly 45 degree rotation in one axis, I get a 180 degree flip)
I have tried switching the axes to check for coordinate space mismatch(which is likely), but I cannot get this to work. Am I doing something wrong?
I have checked the 3d points that i pass into the algorithm, and they are correct, so my issue is either in the point-to-plane code, or the quaternion conversion.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

If you want to calculate the quaternion which rotates one plane to another, simply compute the quaternion that rotates the normal to the other:
#include <Eigen/Geometry>
int main() {
using namespace Eigen;
// replace this by your actual plane normal:
Vector3d plane_normal = Vector3d::Random().normalized();
// Quaternion which rotates plane_normal to UnitZ, or the plane to the XY-plane:
Quaterniond rotQ = Quaterniond::FromTwoVectors(plane_normal, Vector3d::UnitZ());
std::cout << "Random plane_normal: " << plane_normal.transpose() << '\n';
std::cout << "rotated plane_normal: " << (rotQ * plane_normal).transpose() << '\n';
}
Also, don't store your angles in degrees, ever (it may sometimes make sense to output them in degrees ...).
And more importantly: Stop using Euler Angles!

2D Elastic Collisions 'Sticking' Issue

I have a simulation with multiple circles moving in 2D space.
There is collision detection between them, and the elastic collisions work 95% of the time. Occasionally however, when two balls hit each other, they stick to each other and overlap, often orbiting each other while being stuck together.
I'm unsure how to solve this problem.
My collision management function looks like this:
void manageCollision(Particle particleA, Particle particleB)
{
float distanceX = particleA.Position.X - particleB.Position.X;
float distanceY = particleA.Position.Y - particleB.Position.Y;
double collisionAngle = Math.Atan2(distanceY, distanceX);
double pA_magnitude = Math.Sqrt(particleA.Velocity.X * particleA.Velocity.X + particleA.Velocity.Y * particleA.Velocity.Y);
double pB_magnitude = Math.Sqrt(particleB.Velocity.X * particleB.Velocity.X + particleB.Velocity.Y * particleB.Velocity.Y);
double pA_direction = Math.Atan2(particleA.Velocity.Y, particleA.Velocity.X);
double pB_direction = Math.Atan2(particleB.Velocity.Y, particleB.Velocity.X);
double pA_newVelocityX = pA_magnitude * Math.Cos(pA_direction - collisionAngle);
double pA_newVelocityY = pA_magnitude * Math.Sin(pA_direction - collisionAngle);
double pB_newVelocityX = pB_magnitude * Math.Cos(pB_direction - collisionAngle);
double pB_newVelocityY = pB_magnitude * Math.Sin(pB_direction - collisionAngle);
double pA_finalVelocityX = ((particleA.Mass - particleB.Mass) * pA_newVelocityX + (particleB.Mass + particleB.Mass) * pB_newVelocityX) / (particleA.Mass + particleB.Mass);
double pB_finalVelocityX = ((particleA.Mass + particleA.Mass) * pA_newVelocityX + (particleB.Mass - particleA.Mass) * pB_newVelocityX) / (particleA.Mass + particleB.Mass);
double pA_finalVelocityY = pA_newVelocityY;
double pB_finalVelocityY = pB_newVelocityY;
particleA.Velocity = new Vector2((float)(Math.Cos(collisionAngle) * pA_finalVelocityX + Math.Cos(collisionAngle + Math.PI / 2) * pA_finalVelocityY), (float)(Math.Sin(collisionAngle) * pA_finalVelocityX + Math.Sin(collisionAngle + Math.PI / 2) * pA_finalVelocityY));
particleB.Velocity = new Vector2((float)(Math.Cos(collisionAngle) * pB_finalVelocityX + Math.Cos(collisionAngle + Math.PI / 2) * pB_finalVelocityY), (float)(Math.Sin(collisionAngle) * pB_finalVelocityX + Math.Sin(collisionAngle + Math.PI / 2) * pB_finalVelocityY));
}
Each ball or particle spawns with a random mass and radius.
The function is called within an update type of method, like this:
Particle pA = particles[i];
for (int k = i + 1; k < particles.Count(); k++)
{
Particle pB = particles[k];
Vector2 delta = pA.Position - pB.Position;
float dist = delta.Length();
if (dist < particles[i].Radius + particles[k].Radius && !particles[i].Colliding && !particles[k].Colliding)
{
particles[i].Colliding = true;
particles[k].Colliding = true;
manageCollision(particles[i], particles[k]);
particles[i].initColorTable(); // Upon collision, change the color
particles[k].initColorTable();
totalCollisions++;
}
else
{
particles[i].Colliding = false;
particles[k].Colliding = false;
}
}

This situation stems from the discrete computation and big step size of duration.
When you observe the objects with some time interval dt, you can observe some intersection between two circles and call your collision method but in the next time step they may still overlap although they are going in different directions after the collision in the previous step.
To reduce this effect, you can try a lower time step size so that the overlap ratio between objects may be reduced.
As a more complicated solution, you can keep a list of your collided objects for every step and during iterations you can check this list if current intersected circles had any "affairs" in the previous step.