I am trying to translate an OpenGl object around in a helical pattern. I cannot figure this out. Problem is I know I need to increment the angle for the x, y, and z coordinates, but the translate function that I use only moves the object by a translate amount which is specific to the object. The Axis I am using is Y up, Z toward the screen and X to the right.
public override void Move(Figure fig)
{
double angle = 0;
double x = RADIUS * Math.Cos(angle);
double y = (angle / RADIUS);
double z = RADIUS * Math.Sin(angle);
fig.Translate(x, y, z);
angle += .5;
}
public void Translate(double fx, double fy, double fz)
{
translateAmt[0] += fx;
translateAmt[1] += fy;
translateAmt[2] += fz;
}
Here are two ways you could approach this:
Procedurally
Check out the ProcessHelix function in NeHe Lesson 36. A little bit hard to read but you should be able to see the basic loop and calculations used to get the points along a helix.
2 Translations and a Rotation
If you perform these transformations in the proper order you can get the helical motion. This is the order you would imagine doing it in your head:
Translate the object away from the origin (e.g. +x) the radius of your helix
Rotate the object around the origin (y axis), creating circular motion
Translate the object along the y axis, creating helical motion.
So in OpenGL, you'd do those backwards, as the last matrix specified is the first one applied... translate in +y (time dependent), rotate around y (time dependent), and translate in x.
Got it working!
private const double RADIUS = 1;
private const double INTERVAL = 0.1;
private double theta = 5;
private double alpha = 0;
private const double ANGLE = 10;
public override void Move(Figure fig)
{
double x = RADIUS * Math.Cos(theta);
double y = 0;
double z = RADIUS * Math.Sin(theta);
double deltaX = z * Math.Cos(alpha) - x * Math.Sin(alpha);
double deltaZ = x * Math.Cos(alpha) + z * Math.Sin(alpha);
fig.Translate(deltaX, y, deltaZ);
fig.Rotate(ANGLE, 0, 0, 1);
alpha += INTERVAL;
}
I think you are missing some code.
In move, angle always starts with zero, so the x,y,z values will always be the same, as the next time you go into Move it will be zero again.
You should be passing in the angle, perhaps, into Move, so that this value will continue to change.
You may need to pass it in as a pointer so that you can update it within the function and have it actually be updated, or, have Move return a double and return angle;.
I expect that your changing of the angle by 0.5 isn't correct, it may need to be based on the repetition number * some value, but you may want to fix your first problem first.
Related
I'm creating a C# code which draws a path. The problem is I don't have coordinates of the path vertices. Instead, I know length of each segment and angle between adjacent segments.
Assuming the first point of the path has coordinates (0;0) I want to draw the path calculating every vertex from given segment length and angle. I'm not good in trigonometry, but I hope it is possible.
I try to cycle through the collection of segments to calculate next point coordinate at each step. So at any step I have the following data:
Given first segment AB with length L1, next segment BC with length L2, an angle ABC between segments AB and BC. Coordinates of points A and B are know, because are evaluated on the previous step.
If it is possible, how to calculate coordinates of the point C from the given data?
This is an example of a collection of segments:
public ObservableCollection<SequenceStep> Sequence { get; set; }
where:
public class SequenceStep
{
public double Length { get; set; }
public double Angle { get; set; }
}
I cycle through the sequence like this:
for (var i = 1; i < Sequence.Count; i++)
{
var sequenceStep = Sequence[i];
var angleInRadians = Math.PI * sequenceStep.Angle / 180.0;
// Calculate next point coordinates from (0,0)
var x = Math.Cos(angleInRadians) * sequenceStep.Length;
var y = Math.Sin(angleInRadians) * sequenceStep.Length;
}
// I start from segment[1], because segment[0] has points (0,0) and (segment[0].Length, 0).
But evaluated coordinates are only for the angle between point and axis X. I think I need to rotate those x,y coordinates, to correspond with orientation of the segment BC. But I always get wrong coordinates.
I would appreciate any help, a C# method or a set formulas.
You can accumulate the angle and calculate the positions like you already do:
double angle = 0.0;
double x = Seqence[0].Length;
double y = 0.0;
for (var i = 1; i < Sequence.Count; i++)
{
var sequenceStep = Sequence[i];
var angleInRadians = Math.PI * sequenceStep.Angle / 180.0;
// update the current angle
angle += Math.PI - angleInRadians;
// ^-- might also be -= depending on your definition of orientation
// Calculate next point coordinates
x += Math.Cos(angle) * sequenceStep.Length;
y += Math.Sin(angle) * sequenceStep.Length;
// Now use (x, y)
}
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);
}
Given an Point array and an arbitrary x,y coordinate, find the index for _points that is closest to the given coordinate.
PointD[] _points
//create a list of x,y coordinates:
for (int i = 0; i < _numberOfArcSegments + 1; i++)
{
double x1 = _orbitEllipseSemiMaj * Math.Sin(angle) - _focalDistance; //we add the focal distance so the focal point is "center"
double y1 = _orbitEllipseSemiMinor * Math.Cos(angle);
//rotates the points to allow for the LongditudeOfPeriapsis.
double x2 = (x1 * Math.Cos(_orbitAngleRadians)) - (y1 * Math.Sin(_orbitAngleRadians));
double y2 = (x1 * Math.Sin(_orbitAngleRadians)) + (y1 * Math.Cos(_orbitAngleRadians));
angle += _segmentArcSweepRadians;
_points[i] = new PointD() { x = x2, y = y2 };
}
I'm drawing an ellipse which represents an orbit. I'm first creating the point array above, then when I draw it, I (attempt) to find the point closest to where the orbiting body is.
To do this I've been attempting to calculate the angle from the center of the ellipse to the body:
public void Update()
{
//adjust so moons get the right positions (body position - focal point position)
Vector4 pos = _bodyPositionDB.AbsolutePosition - _positionDB.AbsolutePosition;
//adjust for focal point
pos.X += _focalDistance;
//rotate to the LonditudeOfPeriapsis.
double x2 = (pos.X * Math.Cos(-_orbitAngleRadians)) - (pos.Y * Math.Sin(-_orbitAngleRadians));
double y2 = (pos.X * Math.Sin(-_orbitAngleRadians)) + (pos.Y * Math.Cos(-_orbitAngleRadians));
_ellipseStartArcAngleRadians = (float)(Math.Atan2(y2, x2)); //Atan2 returns a value between -180 and 180;
}
then:
double unAdjustedIndex = (_ellipseStartArcAngleRadians / _segmentArcSweepRadians);
while (unAdjustedIndex < 0)
{
unAdjustedIndex += (2 * Math.PI);
}
int index = (int)unAdjustedIndex;
The ellipse draws fine, (the point array is correct and all is good once adjusted for viewscreen and camera offsets and zoom)
But does not start at the correct point (I'm decreasing the alpha in the color so the resulting ellipse fades away the further it gets from the body)
I've spend days trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong here and tried a dozen different things trying to figure out where my math is wrong, but I'm not seeing it.
I assume that _points should be an array of PointD;
This is the shortest way to get the closest point to your array (calcdistance should be a simple function that calculate the euclidean distance):
PointD p = _points.OrderBy(p => CalcDistance(p, gievnPoint)).First();
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
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!