I would like to perform blinear interpolation using python.
Example gps point for which I want to interpolate height is:
B = 54.4786674627
L = 17.0470721369
using four adjacent points with known coordinates and height values:
n = [(54.5, 17.041667, 31.993), (54.5, 17.083333, 31.911), (54.458333, 17.041667, 31.945), (54.458333, 17.083333, 31.866)]
z01 z11
z
z00 z10
and here's my primitive attempt:
import math
z00 = n[0][2]
z01 = n[1][2]
z10 = n[2][2]
z11 = n[3][2]
c = 0.016667 #grid spacing
x0 = 56 #latitude of origin of grid
y0 = 13 #longitude of origin of grid
i = math.floor((L-y0)/c)
j = math.floor((B-x0)/c)
t = (B - x0)/c - j
z0 = (1-t)*z00 + t*z10
z1 = (1-t)*z01 + t*z11
s = (L-y0)/c - i
z = (1-s)*z0 + s*z1
where z0 and z1
z01 z0 z11
z
z00 z1 z10
I get 31.964 but from other software I get 31.961.
Is my script correct?
Can You provide another approach?
2022 Edit:
I would like to thank everyone who, even more than a decade after publication of this question, gives new answers to it.
Here's a reusable function you can use. It includes doctests and data validation:
def bilinear_interpolation(x, y, points):
'''Interpolate (x,y) from values associated with four points.
The four points are a list of four triplets: (x, y, value).
The four points can be in any order. They should form a rectangle.
>>> bilinear_interpolation(12, 5.5,
... [(10, 4, 100),
... (20, 4, 200),
... (10, 6, 150),
... (20, 6, 300)])
165.0
'''
# See formula at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilinear_interpolation
points = sorted(points) # order points by x, then by y
(x1, y1, q11), (_x1, y2, q12), (x2, _y1, q21), (_x2, _y2, q22) = points
if x1 != _x1 or x2 != _x2 or y1 != _y1 or y2 != _y2:
raise ValueError('points do not form a rectangle')
if not x1 <= x <= x2 or not y1 <= y <= y2:
raise ValueError('(x, y) not within the rectangle')
return (q11 * (x2 - x) * (y2 - y) +
q21 * (x - x1) * (y2 - y) +
q12 * (x2 - x) * (y - y1) +
q22 * (x - x1) * (y - y1)
) / ((x2 - x1) * (y2 - y1) + 0.0)
You can run test code by adding:
if __name__ == '__main__':
import doctest
doctest.testmod()
Running the interpolation on your dataset produces:
>>> n = [(54.5, 17.041667, 31.993),
(54.5, 17.083333, 31.911),
(54.458333, 17.041667, 31.945),
(54.458333, 17.083333, 31.866),
]
>>> bilinear_interpolation(54.4786674627, 17.0470721369, n)
31.95798688313631
Not sure if this helps much, but I get a different value when doing linear interpolation using scipy:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> from scipy.interpolate import griddata
>>> n = np.array([(54.5, 17.041667, 31.993),
(54.5, 17.083333, 31.911),
(54.458333, 17.041667, 31.945),
(54.458333, 17.083333, 31.866)])
>>> griddata(n[:,0:2], n[:,2], [(54.4786674627, 17.0470721369)], method='linear')
array([ 31.95817681])
Inspired from here, I came up with the following snippet. The API is optimized for reusing a lot of times the same table:
from bisect import bisect_left
class BilinearInterpolation(object):
""" Bilinear interpolation. """
def __init__(self, x_index, y_index, values):
self.x_index = x_index
self.y_index = y_index
self.values = values
def __call__(self, x, y):
# local lookups
x_index, y_index, values = self.x_index, self.y_index, self.values
i = bisect_left(x_index, x) - 1
j = bisect_left(y_index, y) - 1
x1, x2 = x_index[i:i + 2]
y1, y2 = y_index[j:j + 2]
z11, z12 = values[j][i:i + 2]
z21, z22 = values[j + 1][i:i + 2]
return (z11 * (x2 - x) * (y2 - y) +
z21 * (x - x1) * (y2 - y) +
z12 * (x2 - x) * (y - y1) +
z22 * (x - x1) * (y - y1)) / ((x2 - x1) * (y2 - y1))
You can use it like this:
table = BilinearInterpolation(
x_index=(54.458333, 54.5),
y_index=(17.041667, 17.083333),
values=((31.945, 31.866), (31.993, 31.911))
)
print(table(54.4786674627, 17.0470721369))
# 31.957986883136307
This version has no error checking and you will run into trouble if you try to use it at the boundaries of the indexes (or beyond). For the full version of the code, including error checking and optional extrapolation, look here.
You can also refer to the interp function in matplotlib.
A numpy implementation of based on this formula:
def bilinear_interpolation(x,y,x_,y_,val):
a = 1 /((x_[1] - x_[0]) * (y_[1] - y_[0]))
xx = np.array([[x_[1]-x],[x-x_[0]]],dtype='float32')
f = np.array(val).reshape(2,2)
yy = np.array([[y_[1]-y],[y-y_[0]]],dtype='float32')
b = np.matmul(f,yy)
return a * np.matmul(xx.T, b)
Input:
Here,x_ is list of [x0,x1] and y_ is list of [y0,y1]
bilinear_interpolation(x=54.4786674627,
y=17.0470721369,
x_=[54.458333,54.5],
y_=[17.041667,17.083333],
val=[31.993,31.911,31.945,31.866])
Output:
array([[31.95912739]])
I think the point of doing a floor function is that usually you're looking to interpolate a value whose coordinate lies between two discrete coordinates. However you seem to have the actual real coordinate values of the closest points already, which makes it simple math.
z00 = n[0][2]
z01 = n[1][2]
z10 = n[2][2]
z11 = n[3][2]
# Let's assume L is your x-coordinate and B is the Y-coordinate
dx = n[2][0] - n[0][0] # The x-gap between your sample points
dy = n[1][1] - n[0][1] # The Y-gap between your sample points
dx1 = (L - n[0][0]) / dx # How close is your point to the left?
dx2 = 1 - dx1 # How close is your point to the right?
dy1 = (B - n[0][1]) / dy # How close is your point to the bottom?
dy2 = 1 - dy1 # How close is your point to the top?
left = (z00 * dy1) + (z01 * dy2) # First interpolate along the y-axis
right = (z10 * dy1) + (z11 * dy2)
z = (left * dx1) + (right * dx2) # Then along the x-axis
There might be a bit of erroneous logic in translating from your example, but the gist of it is you can weight each point based on how much closer it is to the interpolation goal point than its other neighbors.
This is the same solution as defined here but applied to some function and compared with interp2d available in Scipy. We use numba library to make the interpolation function even faster than Scipy implementation.
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import interp2d
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from numba import jit, prange
#jit(nopython=True, fastmath=True, nogil=True, cache=True, parallel=True)
def bilinear_interpolation(x_in, y_in, f_in, x_out, y_out):
f_out = np.zeros((y_out.size, x_out.size))
for i in prange(f_out.shape[1]):
idx = np.searchsorted(x_in, x_out[i])
x1 = x_in[idx-1]
x2 = x_in[idx]
x = x_out[i]
for j in prange(f_out.shape[0]):
idy = np.searchsorted(y_in, y_out[j])
y1 = y_in[idy-1]
y2 = y_in[idy]
y = y_out[j]
f11 = f_in[idy-1, idx-1]
f21 = f_in[idy-1, idx]
f12 = f_in[idy, idx-1]
f22 = f_in[idy, idx]
f_out[j, i] = ((f11 * (x2 - x) * (y2 - y) +
f21 * (x - x1) * (y2 - y) +
f12 * (x2 - x) * (y - y1) +
f22 * (x - x1) * (y - y1)) /
((x2 - x1) * (y2 - y1)))
return f_out
We make it quite a large interpolation array to assess the performance of each method.
The sample function is,
x = np.linspace(0, 4, 13)
y = np.array([0, 2, 3, 3.5, 3.75, 3.875, 3.9375, 4])
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
Z = np.sin(np.pi*X/2) * np.exp(Y/2)
x2 = np.linspace(0, 4, 1000)
y2 = np.linspace(0, 4, 1000)
Z2 = bilinear_interpolation(x, y, Z, x2, y2)
fun = interp2d(x, y, Z, kind='linear')
Z3 = fun(x2, y2)
fig, ax = plt.subplots(nrows=1, ncols=3, figsize=(10, 6))
ax[0].pcolormesh(X, Y, Z, shading='auto')
ax[0].set_title("Original function")
X2, Y2 = np.meshgrid(x2, y2)
ax[1].pcolormesh(X2, Y2, Z2, shading='auto')
ax[1].set_title("bilinear interpolation")
ax[2].pcolormesh(X2, Y2, Z3, shading='auto')
ax[2].set_title("Scipy bilinear function")
plt.show()
Performance Test
Python without numba library
bilinear_interpolation function, in this case, is the same as numba version except that we change prange with python normal range in the for loop, and remove function decorator jit
%timeit bilinear_interpolation(x, y, Z, x2, y2)
Gives 7.15 s ± 107 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
Python with numba numba
%timeit bilinear_interpolation(x, y, Z, x2, y2)
Gives 2.65 ms ± 70.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
Scipy implementation
%%timeit
f = interp2d(x, y, Z, kind='linear')
Z2 = f(x2, y2)
Gives 6.63 ms ± 145 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
Performance tests are performed on 'Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700K CPU # 3.70GHz'
I suggest the following solution:
def bilinear_interpolation(x, y, z01, z11, z00, z10):
def linear_interpolation(x, z0, z1):
return z0 * x + z1 * (1 - x)
return linear_interpolation(y, linear_interpolation(x, z01, z11),
linear_interpolation(x, z00, z10))
Related
I am trying to create the equation in python.
Sorry in advance if this has already been asked! If so, I couldn't find it, so please share the post!
I run into the problem that I don't know how to code the part in the red square (see equation ).
As I understand it the "|u1|" stands for the absolute value of u1. However, if I code it like the equation is written i.e. abs(u1)abs(u2) I get a syntax error (which I kind of expected).
My problem is the line of code:
angle = np.arccos((Mu1*Mu2)/(abs(Mu1)abs(Mu2)))
My complete code is:
import numpy as np
from math import sqrt
#first direction vector
#punt 1, PQ
# [x,y]
P = (1,1)
Q = (5,3)
#punt 2, RS
R = (2,3)
S = (4,1)
#direction vector = arctan(yq-yp/xq-xp)
#create function to calc direction vector of line
def dirvec(coord1, coord2):
#pull coordinates into x and y variables
x1 , y1 = coord1[0], coord1[1]
x2 , y2 = coord2[0], coord2[1]
#calc vector see article
v = np.arctan((y2-y1)/(x2-x1))
#outputs in radians, not degrees
v = np.degrees(v)
return v
print(dirvec(P,Q))
print(dirvec(R,S))
Mu1 = dirvec(P,Q)
Mu2 = dirvec(R,S)
angle = np.arccos((Mu1*Mu2)/(abs(Mu1)abs(Mu2)))
print(angle)
Thins I tried:
multiply the two abs, but then I'll get the same number (pi) every time:
np.arccos((Mu1*Mu2)/(abs(Mu1)*abs(Mu2)))
+ and - but I cannot imagine these are correct:
np.arccos((Mu1Mu2)/(abs(Mu1)+abs(Mu2))) np.arccos((Mu1Mu2)/(abs(Mu1)-abs(Mu2)))
In the formula, the numerator is the dot product of two vectors, and the denominator is the product of the norms of the two vectors.
Here is a simple way to write your formula:
import math
def dot_product(u, v):
(x1, y1) = u
(x2, y2) = v
return x1 * x2 + y1 * y2
def norm(u):
(x, y) = u
return math.sqrt(x * x + y * y)
def get_angle(u, v):
return math.acos( dot_product(u,v) / (norm(u) * norm(v)) )
def make_vector(p, q):
(x1, y1) = p
(x2, y2) = q
return (x2 - x1, y2 - y1)
#first direction vector
#punt 1, PQ
# [x,y]
P = (1,1)
Q = (5,3)
#punt 2, RS
R = (2,3)
S = (4,1)
angle = get_angle(make_vector(p,q), make_vector(r,s))
print(angle)
From what I see, the result of your code would always be pi or 0. It will be pi if one of the mu1 or mu2 is negative and when both are negative or positive it will be zero.
If I remember vectors properly :
Given two vectors P and Q, with say P = (x, y) and Q = (a, b)
Then abs(P) = sqrt(x^2 + y^2) and P. Q = xa+yb. So that cos# = P. Q/(abs(P) *abs(Q)). If am not clear you can give an example of what you intend to do
Okay so apparently I made a mistake in my interpretation.
I want to thank everyone for your solutions!
After some puzzling it appears that:
import math
import numpy as np
#punt 1, PQ
# [x,y]
P = (1,1)
Q = (5,3)
x1 = P[0]
x2 = Q[0]
y1 = P[1]
y2 = Q[1]
#punt 2, RS
R = (0,2)
S = (4,1)
x3 = R[0]
x4 = S[0]
y3 = R[1]
y4 = S[1]
angle = np.arccos(((x2 - x1) * (x4 - x3) + (y2 - y1) * (y4 - y3)) / (math.sqrt((x2 - x1)**2 + (y2 - y1)**2) * math.sqrt((x4 - x3)**2 + (y4 - y3)**2)))
print(angle)
Is the correct way to calculate the angle between two vectors.
This is obviously not pretty code, but it is the essence of how it works!
Again I want to thank you all for you reaction and solutions!
I am rusty in my math, not sure how to calculate the distrance from the highest point H to the intersection between the 2 lowest points in the middle for the N point.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy import interpolate
import numpy as np
y= [10.5,10,12,13,10,11,16,10,9,13,10]
x= np.linspace(1, len(y), len(y), endpoint=True)
dist = np.linalg.norm(y-x)
print dst
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(8, 6))
ax.plot(x, y, color='red')
import heapq
import operator
import math
y = [10.5,10,12,13,10,11,16,10,9,13,10]
x= np.linspace(1, len(y), len(y), endpoint=True)
y1,y2 = heapq.nsmallest(2, enumerate(y), key=operator.itemgetter(1))
x1,y1 = y1
x1 = x[x1]
x2,y2 = y2
x2 = x[x2]
m = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
print("Equation of line: y = {}(x-{}) + {}".format(m, x1, y1))
apexPoint = (5,4) # or wherever the apex point is
X,Y = apexPoint
M = 1/m
print("Equation of perpendicular line: y = {}(x-{}) + {}".format(M, X, Y))
intersect_x = ((M*X)+Y-(m*x1)-y1)/(M-m)
intersect_y = m*(intersect_x - x1) + y1
dist = math.sqrt((X - intersect_x)**2 + (Y - intersect_y)**2) # this is your answer
This doesn't answer your question directly but perhaps you would want to checkout the awesome python module shapely.
You can create geometric objects such as LineStrings, Points using the module.
And a simple call to:
object.project(other[, normalized=False])
Returns the distance along this geometric object to a point nearest
the other object.
will give you your answer.
Here's its documentation:
Shapely Documentation
I looked at your chart. The line is not perpendicular. It is a vertical line from a point to a line segment.
Assuming your apex point is (x0,y0) and your base points are (x1,y1) and (x2,y2):
The equation of the line joining 2 points (x1,y1) and (x2,y2) is:
y = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1) * x + (y2 * (x2-x1) - x1 * (y2-y1)) / (x2-x1)
Get the y intercept on the the line:
ymid = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1) * x0 + (y2 * (x2-x1) - x1 * (y2-y1)) / (x2-x1)
Your distance is:
y0 - ymid
See http://pythonfiddle.com/SO-33162756/
I need to make an offset parallel enclosure of an airfoil profile curve, but I cant figure out how to make all the points be equidistant to the points on the primary profile curve at desired distance.
this is my example airfoil profile
this is my best and not good approach
EDIT #Patrick Solution for distance 0.2
You'll have to special-case slopes of infinity/zero, but the basic approach is to use interpolation to calculate the slope at a point, and then find the perpendicular slope, and then calculate the point at that distance.
I have modified the example from here to add a second graph. It works with the data file you provided, but you might need to change the sign calculation for a different envelope.
EDIT As per your comments about wanting the envelope to be continuous, I have added a cheesy semicircle at the end that gets really close to doing this for you. Essentially, when creating the envelope, the rounder and more convex you can make it, the better it will work. Also, you need to overlap the beginning and the end, or you'll have a gap.
Also, it could almost certainly be made more efficient -- I am not a numpy expert by any means, so this is just pure Python.
def offset(coordinates, distance):
coordinates = iter(coordinates)
x1, y1 = coordinates.next()
z = distance
points = []
for x2, y2 in coordinates:
# tangential slope approximation
try:
slope = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)
# perpendicular slope
pslope = -1/slope # (might be 1/slope depending on direction of travel)
except ZeroDivisionError:
continue
mid_x = (x1 + x2) / 2
mid_y = (y1 + y2) / 2
sign = ((pslope > 0) == (x1 > x2)) * 2 - 1
# if z is the distance to your parallel curve,
# then your delta-x and delta-y calculations are:
# z**2 = x**2 + y**2
# y = pslope * x
# z**2 = x**2 + (pslope * x)**2
# z**2 = x**2 + pslope**2 * x**2
# z**2 = (1 + pslope**2) * x**2
# z**2 / (1 + pslope**2) = x**2
# z / (1 + pslope**2)**0.5 = x
delta_x = sign * z / ((1 + pslope**2)**0.5)
delta_y = pslope * delta_x
points.append((mid_x + delta_x, mid_y + delta_y))
x1, y1 = x2, y2
return points
def add_semicircle(x_origin, y_origin, radius, num_x = 50):
points = []
for index in range(num_x):
x = radius * index / num_x
y = (radius ** 2 - x ** 2) ** 0.5
points.append((x, -y))
points += [(x, -y) for x, y in reversed(points)]
return [(x + x_origin, y + y_origin) for x, y in points]
def round_data(data):
# Add infinitesimal rounding of the envelope
assert data[-1] == data[0]
x0, y0 = data[0]
x1, y1 = data[1]
xe, ye = data[-2]
x = x0 - (x0 - x1) * .01
y = y0 - (y0 - y1) * .01
yn = (x - xe) / (x0 - xe) * (y0 - ye) + ye
data[0] = x, y
data[-1] = x, yn
data.extend(add_semicircle(x, (y + yn) / 2, abs((y - yn) / 2)))
del data[-18:]
from pylab import *
with open('ah79100c.dat', 'rb') as f:
f.next()
data = [[float(x) for x in line.split()] for line in f if line.strip()]
t = [x[0] for x in data]
s = [x[1] for x in data]
round_data(data)
parallel = offset(data, 0.1)
t2 = [x[0] for x in parallel]
s2 = [x[1] for x in parallel]
plot(t, s, 'g', t2, s2, 'b', lw=1)
title('Wing with envelope')
grid(True)
axes().set_aspect('equal', 'datalim')
savefig("test.png")
show()
If you are willing (and able) to install a third-party tool, I'd highly recommend the Shapely module. Here's a small sample that offsets both inward and outward:
from StringIO import StringIO
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import requests
import shapely.geometry as shp
# Read the points
AFURL = 'http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_seligFmt/ah79100c.dat'
afpts = np.loadtxt(StringIO(requests.get(AFURL).content), skiprows=1)
# Create a Polygon from the nx2 array in `afpts`
afpoly = shp.Polygon(afpts)
# Create offset airfoils, both inward and outward
poffafpoly = afpoly.buffer(0.03) # Outward offset
noffafpoly = afpoly.buffer(-0.03) # Inward offset
# Turn polygon points into numpy arrays for plotting
afpolypts = np.array(afpoly.exterior)
poffafpolypts = np.array(poffafpoly.exterior)
noffafpolypts = np.array(noffafpoly.exterior)
# Plot points
plt.plot(*afpolypts.T, color='black')
plt.plot(*poffafpolypts.T, color='red')
plt.plot(*noffafpolypts.T, color='green')
plt.axis('equal')
plt.show()
And here's the output; notice how the 'bowties' (self-intersections) on the inward offset are automatically removed:
Here is my code to solve differential equation dy / dt = 2 / sqrt(pi) * exp(-x * x) to plot erf(x).
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import odeint
import numpy as np
import math
def euler(df, f0, x):
h = x[1] - x[0]
y = [f0]
for i in xrange(len(x) - 1):
y.append(y[i] + h * df(y[i], x[i]))
return y
def i(df, f0, x):
h = x[1] - x[0]
y = [f0]
y.append(y[0] + h * df(y[0], x[0]))
for i in xrange(1, len(x) - 1):
fn = df(y[i], x[i])
fn1 = df(y[i - 1], x[i - 1])
y.append(y[i] + (3 * fn - fn1) * h / 2)
return y
if __name__ == "__main__":
df = lambda y, x: 2.0 / math.sqrt(math.pi) * math.exp(-x * x)
f0 = 0.0
x = np.linspace(-10.0, 10.0, 10000)
y1 = euler(df, f0, x)
y2 = i(df, f0, x)
y3 = odeint(df, f0, x)
plt.plot(x, y1, x, y2, x, y3)
plt.legend(["euler", "modified", "odeint"], loc='best')
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()
And here is a plot:
Am I using odeint in a wrong way or it's a bug?
Notice that if you change x to x = np.linspace(-5.0, 5.0, 10000), then your code works. Therefore, I suspect the problem has something to do with exp(-x*x) being too small when x is very small or very large. [Total speculation: Perhaps the odeint (lsoda) algorithm adapts its stepsize based on values sampled around x = -10 and increases the stepsize in such a way that values around x = 0 are missed?]
The code can be fixed by using the tcrit parameter, which tells odeint to pay special attention around certain critical points.
So, by setting
y3 = integrate.odeint(df, f0, x, tcrit = [0])
we tell odeint to sample more carefully around 0.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import scipy.integrate as integrate
import numpy as np
import math
def euler(df, f0, x):
h = x[1] - x[0]
y = [f0]
for i in xrange(len(x) - 1):
y.append(y[i] + h * df(y[i], x[i]))
return y
def i(df, f0, x):
h = x[1] - x[0]
y = [f0]
y.append(y[0] + h * df(y[0], x[0]))
for i in xrange(1, len(x) - 1):
fn = df(y[i], x[i])
fn1 = df(y[i - 1], x[i - 1])
y.append(y[i] + (3 * fn - fn1) * h / 2)
return y
def df(y, x):
return 2.0 / np.sqrt(np.pi) * np.exp(-x * x)
if __name__ == "__main__":
f0 = 0.0
x = np.linspace(-10.0, 10.0, 10000)
y1 = euler(df, f0, x)
y2 = i(df, f0, x)
y3 = integrate.odeint(df, f0, x, tcrit = [0])
plt.plot(x, y1)
plt.plot(x, y2)
plt.plot(x, y3)
plt.legend(["euler", "modified", "odeint"], loc='best')
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()
I want to find a 3D plane equation given 3 points. I have got the normal calculated after applying the cross product. But the equation of a plane is known to be the normal multiply by another vector which what I am taught to be as P.OP. I substitute my main reference point as OP and i want P to be in (x, y, z) form. So that I can get something like e.g,
OP = (1, 2, 3)
I want to get something like that:
(x-1)
(y-2)
(z-3)
May I know how?
Below is my reference code.(Note: plane_point_1_x(), plane_point_1_y(), plane_point_1_z() are all functions asking for the user input of the respective points)
"""
I used Point P as my reference point so I will make use of it in this section
"""
vector_pop_x = int('x') - int(plane_point_1_x())
vector_pop_y = int('y') - int(plane_point_1_y())
vector_pop_z = int('z') - int(plane_point_1_z())
print vector_pop_x, vector_pop_y, vector_pop_z
All the above is what i did, but for some reason it did not work. I think the problem lies in the x, y , z part.
Say you have three known points, each with (x, y, z). For example:
p1 = (1, 2, 3)
p2 = (4, 6, 9)
p3 = (12, 11, 9)
Make them into symbols that are easier to look at for further processing:
x1, y1, z1 = p1
x2, y2, z2 = p2
x3, y3, z3 = p3
Determine two vectors from the points:
v1 = [x3 - x1, y3 - y1, z3 - z1]
v2 = [x2 - x1, y2 - y1, z2 - z1]
Determine the cross product of the two vectors:
cp = [v1[1] * v2[2] - v1[2] * v2[1],
v1[2] * v2[0] - v1[0] * v2[2],
v1[0] * v2[1] - v1[1] * v2[0]]
A plane can be described using a simple equation ax + by + cz = d. The three coefficients from the cross product are a, b and c, and d can be solved by substituting a known point, for example the first:
a, b, c = cp
d = a * x1 + b * y1 + c * z1
Now do something useful, like determine the z value at x=4, y=5. Re-arrange the simple equation, and solve for z:
x = 4
y = 5
z = (d - a * x - b * y) / float(c) # z = 6.176470588235294
If I am not mistaken, one good solution here contains mistypes
vector1 = [x2 - x1, y2 - y1, z2 - z1]
vector2 = [x3 - x1, y3 - y1, z3 - z1]
cross_product = [vector1[1] * vector2[2] - vector1[2] * vector2[1], -1 * (vector1[0] * vector2[2] - vector1[2] * vector2[0]), vector1[0] * vector2[1] - vector1[1] * vector2[0]]
a = cross_product[0]
b = cross_product[1]
c = cross_product[2]
d = - (cross_product[0] * x1 + cross_product[1] * y1 + cross_product[2] * z1)
Tried previous (author's) version, but had to check it. With couple more minuses in formulas seems correct now.
One good way is:
| x1 y1 z2 1 |
| x2 y2 z2 1 |
| x3 y3 z3 1 | = 0
| x y z 1 |
Where the vertical pipes mean the determinant of the matrix, and (x1 y1 z1), (x2 y2 z2), and (x3 y3 z3) are your given points.
Plane implicit Eqn:
All points P = (x, y, z) satisfying
<n, QP> = 0
where
n is the plane normal vector,
Q is some point on the plane (any will do)
QP is the vector from Q to P
<a, b> is the scalar (dot) product operator.
(Remember that QP can be computed as P - Q)
I wish this answer already existed. Coded from http://www.had2know.com/academics/equation-plane-through-3-points.html
Supposing 3 points p1, p2, p3 - consisting of [x1, y1, z1], etc.
vector1 = [x2 - x1, y2 - y1, z2 - z1]
vector2 = [x3 - x1, y3 - y1, z3 - z1]
cross_product = [vector1[1] * vector2[2] - vector1[2] * vector2[1], -1 * vector1[0] * v2[2] - vector1[2] * vector2[0], vector1[0] * vector2[1] - vector1[1] * vector2[0]]
d = cross_product[0] * x1 - cross_product[1] * y1 + cross_product[2] * z1
a = cross_product[0]
b = cross_product[1]
c = cross_product[2]
d = d