I need the ability to determine which Shape a given point falls within. There will be overlapped shapes and I need to find the Shape with the smallest area. For example, given the Shapes and points illustrated in the image below the following would be true:
Point 3 - collides with star
Point 2 - collides with diamond
Point 1 - collides with circle
Given this, I would like to know if there is a built in way to do what is needed.
If you are drawing these shapes manually, you could do a second drawing pass into a separate buffer, and instead of drawing the shape, you write an ID into the buffer if the pixel is within the shape. Then your hit test just has to index into that buffer and retrieve the ID. You would get to re-use your drawing code completely, and it scales much better when you have more shapes, vertices, and hits to test.
I've arrived at a solution that meets the requirements, still interested in hearing if there is a better way of doing this. My approach is as follows: do a hit-test by bounding box, then a geometric hit test based on the type of geometry.
For Polygons, I've adapted the C code mentioned http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/wrf/Research/Short_Notes /pnpoly.html to work in C#.
int pnpoly(int nvert, float *vertx, float *verty, float testx, float testy)
{
int i, j, c = 0;
for (i = 0, j = nvert-1; i < nvert; j = i++) {
if ( ((verty[i]>testy) != (verty[j]>testy)) &&
(testx < (vertx[j]-vertx[i]) * (testy-verty[i]) / (verty[j]-verty[i]) + vertx[i]) )
c = !c;
}
return c;
}
For Ellipses, I've adaptated this code: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa231172%28v=vs.60%29.aspx
BOOL CCircCtrl::InCircle(CPoint& point)
{
CRect rc;
GetClientRect(rc);
GetDrawRect(&rc);
// Determine radii
double a = (rc.right - rc.left) / 2;
double b = (rc.bottom - rc.top) / 2;
// Determine x, y
double x = point.x - (rc.left + rc.right) / 2;
double y = point.y - (rc.top + rc.bottom) / 2;
// Apply ellipse formula
return ((x * x) / (a * a) + (y * y) / (b * b) <= 1);
}
Related
I'm learning about Bezier curves and would like to parameterize the equations for distance using an estimation method. So far, my code seems to work for single points (EG Bezier(start=0, mid=1, end=5, nPoints=6) yields [0 1 2 3 4 5]). However, when I attempt to apply this to multi-dimensional curves, my results are not as expected.
C# code (executed in Unity for visualization). The function (should) get a point on the curve (defined by the points pts) at a length l% of the length.
Vector3 BezierL(Vector3[] pts, float l)
{
int i;
float[] tVals = new float[n];
Vector3[] points = new Vector3[n];
float[] cumDist = new float[n];
for (i = 1; i < n; i++)
{
tVals[i] = i / (float)(n - 1);
points[i] = Bezier(pts, tVals[i]);
cumDist[i] = cumDist[i - 1] +
(points[i] - points[i - 1]).magnitude;
}
// Interpolate to estimate t
float targetLen = l * cumDist[n - 1];
int ind = Array.BinarySearch(cumDist, targetLen);
if (ind < 0)
ind = ~ind;
float t = Mathf.Lerp(tVals[ind - 1], tVals[ind],
(targetLen - cumDist[ind - 1]) / (cumDist[ind] - cumDist[ind - 1]));
return Bezier(pts, t);
}
where Bezier(Vector3[] pts, t) gets a point on the curve defined by pts at time t. For whatever reason, this partially works in that all points are equally spaced, but some points are stacked at the initial point rather than being distributed along the curve.
This was my reference for developing this algorithm, so I'm unsure if my implementation is incorrect, or if it only applies to lower-dimensional curves.
Thanks in advance!
Oof how embarrassing, I just forgot to compute the 0th point!
Alright, so today I decided to try to further optimize my collision detection code for my tile engine.
This is what I did:
Circle class checks if there are points within range. If there are, then check for collision between player and tile.
Code:
int tileWidth = 128;
int tileHeight = 128;
int[,] Layer3 = { 1, 1, 1, etc... };
int tileMapWidth = Layer3.GetLength(1);
int tileMapHeight = Layer3.GetLength(0);
Rectangle tile, tile2;
for (int x = 0; x < tileMapWidth; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y < tileMapHeight; y++)
{
int wallIndex = Layer3[y, x];
if (wallIndex == 1) //Full-sized Tile Collision (128 x 128)
{
if (collisionCircle.Contains(new Vector2(x * tileWidth + (tileWidth / 2) + (int)Player.camera.Position.X,
y * tileHeight + (tileHeight / 2) + (int)Player.camera.Position.Y))) //+ tile / 2 is for centering the point
{
tile = new Rectangle(x * tileWidth + (int)Player.camera.Position.X, y * tileHeight + (int)Player.camera.Position.Y, tileWidth, tileHeight);
Collide(tile);
}
}
}
}
This would check throughout layer3 if there is a "1". If there is, assign rectangle and check for collision if point is inside collision radius.
Also, I checked this code(with a draw method), and I know it's working properly, at least the behavior.
I added in about 120,000(32 x 3888) tiles to try to make it lag, and before the code, it lagged a little bit. But after I added in the code, it lagged even more so.
I thought that since it would only check for collision between tiles(points) that are within the radius it wouldn't even remotely lag, but that's not the case...
Any help/ideas on how to optimize this would be great.
Thanks a lot,
Shyy
EDIT:
Cirlce.Contains() code:
public bool Contains(Vector2 Point)
{
return ((Point - position).Length() <= radius);
}
I used a circle because I've heard it's faster than using a rectangle.
Another possible optimization is instead of
return ((Point - position).Length() <= radius);
use
return ((Point - position).LengthSquared() <= radius * radius);
This is faster because Vector2.Length() has to perform a costly square root operation. Vector2.LengthSquared() does not have to perform that slow operation. The radius has to be multiplied by itself to account for the length from the vector being squared.
It sounds like you're trying to determine what tiles you don't need to use for collision with the player. Another optimization you could do is that if a tile at (X=5,Y=5) is above and to the left of the player, then you don't need to check a tile at (X=4,Y=4). Similarly if (X=5,Y=5) is below and to the right, (X=6,Y=6) is guaranteed to be too far as well. Try to determine when you've passed the player and no longer need to check collisions.
I suggest to loop only over visible tiles in screen to check collision using movement offset.
i will try something from my head..
for x as integer = 0 + offSetX to tilesInWidth + offSetX
for y as integer = 0 + offSetY to tilesInHeight + offSetY
if player.insideCircle(player.position, radius) '
object = layer(y,x);
if player.collideWith(object) then Collide()
end if
next
next
In my application I have loaded a picture and I want to be able to detect similar colors. So if I select a color I want the application to be able to find all pixels with that same (or almost the same) color. This is what I wrote for a detection system that looks in a vertical direction between the point of the mouse click and the end of the bitmap.
for (int y = mouseY; y < m_bitmap.Height; y++)
{
Color pixel = m_bitmap.GetPixel(mouseX, y);
//check if there is another color
if ((pixel.R > curcolor.R + treshold || pixel.R < curcolor.R - treshold) ||
(pixel.G > curcolor.G + treshold || pixel.G < curcolor.G - treshold) ||
(pixel.B > curcolor.B + treshold || pixel.B < curcolor.B - treshold))
{ //YESSSSS!
if ((y - ytop > minheight)&&(curcolor != Color.White)) //no white, at least 15px height
{
colorlayers.Add(new ColorLayer(curcolor, y - 1, ytop));
}
curcolor = pixel;
ytop = y;
}
}
Would this be the best way? Somehow it looks like it doesn't work too good with yellowish colors.
RGB is a 3D space.
A color far away threshold in all directions is not so similar to original one (and what is similar according to numbers may not be so similar to human beings eyes).
I would make a check using HSL (for example) where hue value as a finite 1D range, just for example:
for (int y = mouseY; y < m_bitmap.Height; y++)
{
Color pixel = m_bitmap.GetPixel(mouseX, y);
if (Math.Abs(color.GetHue() - curcolor.GetHue()) <= threshold)
{
// ...
}
}
Moreover please note that using bitmaps in this way (GetPixel() is terribly slow, take a look to this post to see a - much - faster alternative).
It might be interesting to look at how the magic wand tool in Paint.NET works.
This is how they compare 2 colors:
private static bool CheckColor(ColorBgra a, ColorBgra b, int tolerance)
{
int sum = 0;
int diff;
diff = a.R - b.R;
sum += (1 + diff * diff) * a.A / 256;
diff = a.G - b.G;
sum += (1 + diff * diff) * a.A / 256;
diff = a.B - b.B;
sum += (1 + diff * diff) * a.A / 256;
diff = a.A - b.A;
sum += diff * diff;
return (sum <= tolerance * tolerance * 4);
}
Source
The reason why yellow colors give a problem might be that RGB is not a perceptually uniform colorspace. This means that, given a distance between two points/colors in the colorspace, the perception of this color distance/difference will in general not be the same.
That said, you might want to use another color space, like HSL as suggested by Adriano, or perhaps Lab.
If you want to stick to RGB, I would suggest to calculate the euclidian distance, like this (I think it's simpler):
float distance = Math.sqrt((pixel.R-curcolor.R)^2 + (pixel.G-curcolor.G)^2 + (pixel.B-curcolor.B)^2);
if(distance < threshold)
{
// Do what you have to.
}
I have a collision detection class that works by finding the distance between the centres and whether that distance is small enough to be a collision (see Collision Detection error). My problem is trying to make this actually work, with ellipses colliding. I will explain more if necessary.
Thx
The best way would to implement per pixel collision detection when the images are overlapping you can read more about this in the following links
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/game/collision3.aspx
Per-pixel collision problem in C#
I also did a problem like this for a project a few years ago when I needed to detect if two circles overlapped where i used the following code
public static bool Intersect(Rectangle rectangle1, Rectangle rectangle2)
{
if (((rectangle1.X < (rectangle2.X + rectangle2.Width)) && (rectangle2.X < (rectangle1.X + rectangle1.Width))) && (rectangle1.Y < (rectangle2.Y + rectangle2.Height)) && (rectangle2.Y < (rectangle1.Y + rectangle1.Height)))
{
Vector2 rect1Centre = new Vector2(rectangle1.X + rectangle1.Width / 2, rectangle1.Y + rectangle1.Height / 2);
Vector2 rect2Centre = new Vector2(rectangle2.X + rectangle2.Width / 2, rectangle2.Y + rectangle1.Height / 2);
double radius1 = ((rectangle1.Width / 2) + (rectangle1.Height / 2)) / 2;
double radius2 = ((rectangle2.Width / 2) + (rectangle2.Height / 2)) / 2;
double widthTri = rect1Centre.X - rect2Centre.X;
double heightTri = rect1Centre.Y - rect2Centre.Y;
double distance = Math.Sqrt(Math.Pow(widthTri, 2) + Math.Pow(heightTri, 2));
if (distance <= (radius1 + radius2))
return true;
}
return false;
}
Not very nice code but I wrote it doing my first XNA game
I had the same problem recently. Circle overlap is easy to determine. With ellipses it's trickier, but not that bad. You play around with the ellipse equation for a while, and the result comes up:
//Returns true if the pixel is inside the ellipse
public bool CollisionCheckPixelInEllipse(Coords pixel, Coords center, UInt16 radiusX, UInt16 radiusY)
{
Int32 asquare = radiusX * radiusX;
Int32 bsquare = radiusY * radiusY;
return ((pixel.X-center.X)*(pixel.X-center.X)*bsquare + (pixel.Y-center.Y)*(pixel.Y-center.Y)*asquare) < (asquare*bsquare);
}
// returns true if the two ellipses overlap
private bool CollisionCheckEllipses(Coords center1, UInt16 radius1X, UInt16 radius1Y, Coords center2, UInt16 radius2X, UInt16 radius2Y)
{
UInt16 radiusSumX = (UInt16) (radius1X + radius2X);
UInt16 radiusSumY = (UInt16) (radius1Y + radius2Y);
return CollisionCheckPixelInEllipse(center1, center2, radiusSumX, radiusSumY);
}
I am writing a program in which I need to draw polygons of an arbitrary number of sides, each one being translated by a given formula which changes dynamically. There is some rather interesting mathematics involved but I am stuck on this probelm.
How can I calculate the coordinates of the vertices of a regular polygon (one in which all angles are equal), given only the number of sides, and ideally (but not neccessarily) having the origin at the centre?
For example: a hexagon might have the following points (all are floats):
( 1.5 , 0.5 *Math.Sqrt(3) )
( 0 , 1 *Math.Sqrt(3) )
(-1.5 , 0.5 *Math.Sqrt(3) )
(-1.5 , -0.5 *Math.Sqrt(3) )
( 0 , -1 *Math.Sqrt(3) )
( 1.5 , -0.5 *Math.Sqrt(3) )
My method looks like this:
void InitPolygonVertexCoords(RegularPolygon poly)
and the coordinates need to be added to this (or something similar, like a list):
Point[] _polygonVertexPoints;
I'm interested mainly in the algorithm here but examples in C# would be useful. I don't even know where to start. How should I implement it? Is it even possible?!
Thank you.
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
printf("%f %f\n",r * Math.cos(2 * Math.PI * i / n), r * Math.sin(2 * Math.PI * i / n));
}
where r is the radius of the circumsribing circle. Sorry for the wrong language No Habla C#.
Basically the angle between any two vertices is 2 pi / n and all the vertices are at distance r from the origin.
EDIT:
If you want to have the center somewher other than the origin, say at (x,y)
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
printf("%f %f\n",x + r * Math.cos(2 * Math.PI * i / n), y + r * Math.sin(2 * Math.PI * i / n));
}
The number of points equals the number of sides.
The angle you need is angle = 2 * pi / numPoints.
Then starting vertically above the origin with the size of the polygon being given by radius:
for (int i = 0; i < numPoints; i++)
{
x = centreX + radius * sin(i * angle);
y = centreY + radius * cos(i * angle);
}
If your centre is the origin then simply ignore the centreX and centreY terms as they'll be 0,0.
Swapping the cos and sin over will point the first point horizontally to the right of the origin.
Sorry, I dont have a full solution at hand right now, but you should try looking for 2D-Rendering of Circles. All classic implementations of circle(x,y,r) use a polygon like you described for drawing (but with 50+ sides).
Say the distance of the vertices to the origin is 1. And say (1, 0) is always a coordinate of the polygon.
Given the number of vertices (say n), the rotation angle required to position the (1, 0) to the next coordinate would be (360/n).
The computation required here is to rotate the coordinates. Here is what it is; Rotation Matrix.
Say theta = 360/n;
[cos(theta) -sin(theta)]
[sin(theta) cos(theta)]
would be your rotation matrix.
If you know linear algebra you already know what i mean. If dont just have a look at Matrix Multiplication
One possible implementation to generate a set of coordinates for regular polygon is to:
Define polygon center, radius and first vertex1. Rotate the vertex n-times2 at an angle of: 360/n.
In this implementation I use a vector to store the generated coordinates and a recursive function to generate them:
void generateRegularPolygon(vector<Point>& v, Point& center, int sidesNumber, int radius){
// converted to radians
double angRads = 2 * PI / double(sidesNumber);
// first vertex
Point initial(center.x, center.y - radius);
rotateCoordinate(v, center, initial, angRads, sidesNumber);
}
where:
void rotateCoordinate(vector<Point>& v, Point& axisOfRotation, Point& initial, double angRads, int numberOfRotations){
// base case: number of transformations < 0
if(numberOfRotations <= 0) return;
else{
// apply rotation to: initial, around pivot point: axisOfRotation
double x = cos(angRads) * (initial.x - axisOfRotation.x) - sin(angRads) * (initial.y - axisOfRotation.y) + axisOfRotation.x;
double y = sin(angRads) * (initial.x - axisOfRotation.x) + cos(angRads) * (initial.y - axisOfRotation.y) + axisOfRotation.y;
// store the result
v.push_back(Point(x, y));
rotateCoordinate(v, axisOfRotation, Point(x,y), angRads, --numberOfRotations);
}
}
Note:
Point is a simple class to wrap the coordinate into single data structure:
class Point{
public:
Point(): x(0), y(0){ }
Point(int xx, int yy): x(xx), y(yy) { }
private:
int x;
int y;
};
1 in terms of (relative to) the center, radius. In my case the first vertex is translated from the centre up horizontally by the radius lenght.
2 n-regular polygon has n vertices.
The simple method is:
Let's take N-gone(number of sides) and length of side L. The angle will be T = 360/N.
Let's say one vertices is located on origin.
* First vertex = (0,0)
* Second vertex = (LcosT,LsinT)
* Third vertex = (LcosT+Lcos2T, LsinT+Lsin2T)
* Fourth vertex = (LcosT+Lcos2T+Lcos3T, LsinT+Lsin2T+Lsin3T)
You can do in for loop
hmm if you test all the versions that are listed here you'll see that the implementation is not good. you can check the distance from the center to each generated point of the polygon with : http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
Now i have searched a lot and i could not find any good implementation for calculating a polyogon using the center and the radius...so i went back to the math book and tried to implement it myself. In the end i came up with this...wich is 100% good:
List<double[]> coordinates = new List<double[]>();
#region create Polygon Coordinates
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(bus.Latitude) && !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(bus.Longitude) && !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(bus.ListingRadius))
{
double lat = DegreeToRadian(Double.Parse(bus.Latitude));
double lon = DegreeToRadian(Double.Parse(bus.Longitude));
double dist = Double.Parse(bus.ListingRadius);
double angle = 36;
for (double i = 0; i <= 360; i += angle)
{
var bearing = DegreeToRadian(i);
var lat2 = Math.Asin(Math.Sin(lat) * Math.Cos(dist / earthRadius) + Math.Cos(lat) * Math.Sin(dist / earthRadius) * Math.Cos(bearing));
var lon2 = lon + Math.Atan2(Math.Sin(bearing) * Math.Sin(dist / earthRadius) * Math.Cos(lat),Math.Cos(dist / earthRadius) - Math.Sin(lat) * Math.Sin(lat2));
coordinates.Add(new double[] { RadianToDegree(lat2), RadianToDegree(lon2) });
}
poly.Coordinates = new[] { coordinates.ToArray() };
}
#endregion
If you test this you'll see that all the points are at the exact distance that you give ( radius ). Also don't forget to declare the earthRadius.
private const double earthRadius = 6371.01;
This calculates the coordinates of a decagon. You see the angle used is 36 degrees. You can split 360 degrees to any number of sides that you want and put the result in the angle variable.
Anyway .. i hope this helps you #rmx!