Is there even such a thing as a 3D centroid? Let me be perfectly clear—I've been reading and reading about centroids for the last 2 days both on this site and across the web, so I'm perfectly aware at the existing posts on the topic, including Wikipedia.
That said, let me explain what I'm trying to do. Basically, I want to take a selection of edges and/or vertices, but NOT faces. Then, I want to place an object at the 3D centroid position.
I'll tell you what I don't want:
The vertices average, which would pull too far in any direction that has a more high-detailed mesh.
The bounding box center, because I already have something working for this scenario.
I'm open to suggestions about center of mass, but I don't see how this would work, because vertices or edges alone don't define any sort of mass, especially when I just have an edge loop selected.
For kicks, I'll show you some PyMEL that I worked up, using #Emile's code as reference, but I don't think it's working the way it should:
from pymel.core import ls, spaceLocator
from pymel.core.datatypes import Vector
from pymel.core.nodetypes import NurbsCurve
def get_centroid(node):
if not isinstance(node, NurbsCurve):
raise TypeError("Requires NurbsCurve.")
centroid = Vector(0, 0, 0)
signed_area = 0.0
cvs = node.getCVs(space='world')
v0 = cvs[len(cvs) - 1]
for i, cv in enumerate(cvs[:-1]):
v1 = cv
a = v0.x * v1.y - v1.x * v0.y
signed_area += a
centroid += sum([v0, v1]) * a
v0 = v1
signed_area *= 0.5
centroid /= 6 * signed_area
return centroid
texas = ls(selection=True)[0]
centroid = get_centroid(texas)
print(centroid)
spaceLocator(position=centroid)
In theory centroid = SUM(pos*volume)/SUM(volume) when you split the part into finite volumes each with a location pos and volume value volume.
This is precisely the calculation done for finding the center of gravity of a composite part.
There is not just a 3D centroid, there is an n-dimensional centroid, and the formula for it is given in the "By integral formula" section of the Wikipedia article you cite.
Perhaps you are having trouble setting up this integral? You have not defined your shape.
[Edit] I'll beef up this answer in response to your comment. Since you have described your shape in terms of edges and vertices, then I'll assume it is a polyhedron. You can partition a polyedron into pyramids, find the centroids of the pyramids, and then the centroid of your shape is the centroid of the centroids (this last calculation is done using ja72's formula).
I'll assume your shape is convex (no hollow parts---if this is not the case then break it into convex chunks). You can partition it into pyramids (triangulate it) by picking a point in the interior and drawing edges to the vertices. Then each face of your shape is the base of a pyramid. There are formulas for the centroid of a pyramid (you can look this up, it's 1/4 the way from the centroid of the face to your interior point). Then as was said, the centroid of your shape is the centroid of the centroids---ja72's finite calculation, not an integral---as given in the other answer.
This is the same algorithm as in Hugh Bothwell's answer, however I believe that 1/4 is correct instead of 1/3. Perhaps you can find some code for it lurking around somewhere using the search terms in this description.
I like the question. Centre of mass sounds right, but the question then becomes, what mass for each vertex?
Why not use the average length of each edge that includes the vertex? This should compensate nicely areas with a dense mesh.
You will have to recreate face information from the vertices (essentially a Delauney triangulation).
If your vertices define a convex hull, you can pick any arbitrary point A inside the object. Treat your object as a collection of pyramidal prisms having apex A and each face as a base.
For each face, find the area Fa and the 2d centroid Fc; then the prism's mass is proportional to the volume (== 1/3 base * height (component of Fc-A perpendicular to the face)) and you can disregard the constant of proportionality so long as you do the same for all prisms; the center of mass is (2/3 A + 1/3 Fc), or a third of the way from the apex to the 2d centroid of the base.
You can then do a mass-weighted average of the center-of-mass points to find the 3d centroid of the object as a whole.
The same process should work for non-convex hulls - or even for A outside the hull - but the face-calculation may be a problem; you will need to be careful about the handedness of your faces.
Related
I am creating a script to generate cylinders in a 3D space, however, I would like for them to not occupy the same region in space (avoid overlapping).
The cylinders are defined by a start and end point, and all have a fixed radius.
I am storing the existing cylinder in an array called listOfCylinders which is an nDim array of shape (nCylinders, 2Points [start, end], {x,y,z} coordinates of each point)
I was able to cook up:
def detect_overlap(new_start, new_end, listOfCylinders):
starts = listOfCylinders[:, 0]
ends = listOfCylinders[:, 1]
radius = 0.1
# Calculate the distance between the new cylinder and all the existing cylinders
dists = np.linalg.norm(np.cross(new_end - new_start, starts - new_start), axis=1) / np.linalg.norm(new_end - new_start)
# Check if any of the distances are less than the sum of the radii
if np.any(dists < (2*radius)):
return True
# If no overlap or intersection is found, return False
return False
But this is not accountting for situations where there is lateral overlaping.
Does anyone have a good algorithm for this?
Best Regards
WLOG one of the cylinders is vertical (otherwise rotate space). If you look at the projections of the apparent outline onto XY, you see a circle and a rectangle ended with ellipses. (For simplicity of the equations, you can also make the second cylindre parallel to XZ.)
If these 2D shapes do not overlap, your are done. Anyway, the intersection of a circle and an ellipse leads to a quartic equation.
You can repeat this process, exchanging the roles of the two cylinders. This gives a sufficient condition of non-overlap. Unfortunately, I am not sure it is necessary, though there is a direct connection to the plane separation theorem.
For a numerical approach, you can proceed as follows:
move the cylindre in the canonical position;
generate rectangles on the oblique cylindre, by rotation around the axis and using an angular parameter;
for all sides of the rectangles, detect interference with the cylindre (this involves a system of a quadratic inequation and two linear ones, which is quite tractable);
sample the angular parameter densely enough to check for no valid intersection.
I guess that a complete analytical solution is possible, but complex, and might anyway lead to equations that need to be solved numerically.
Say I have an arbitrary set of latitude and longitude pairs representing points on some simple, closed curve. In Cartesian space I could easily calculate the area enclosed by such a curve using Green's Theorem. What is the analogous approach to calculating the area on the surface of a sphere? I guess what I am after is (even some approximation of) the algorithm behind Matlab's areaint function.
There several ways to do this.
1) Integrate the contributions from latitudinal strips. Here the area of each strip will be (Rcos(A)(B1-B0))(RdA), where A is the latitude, B1 and B0 are the starting and ending longitudes, and all angles are in radians.
2) Break the surface into spherical triangles, and calculate the area using Girard's Theorem, and add these up.
3) As suggested here by James Schek, in GIS work they use an area preserving projection onto a flat space and calculate the area in there.
From the description of your data, in sounds like the first method might be the easiest. (Of course, there may be other easier methods I don't know of.)
Edit – comparing these two methods:
On first inspection, it may seem that the spherical triangle approach is easiest, but, in general, this is not the case. The problem is that one not only needs to break the region up into triangles, but into spherical triangles, that is, triangles whose sides are great circle arcs. For example, latitudinal boundaries don't qualify, so these boundaries need to be broken up into edges that better approximate great circle arcs. And this becomes more difficult to do for arbitrary edges where the great circles require specific combinations of spherical angles. Consider, for example, how one would break up a middle band around a sphere, say all the area between lat 0 and 45deg into spherical triangles.
In the end, if one is to do this properly with similar errors for each method, method 2 will give fewer triangles, but they will be harder to determine. Method 1 gives more strips, but they are trivial to determine. Therefore, I suggest method 1 as the better approach.
I rewrote the MATLAB's "areaint" function in java, which has exactly the same result.
"areaint" calculates the "suface per unit", so I multiplied the answer by Earth's Surface Area (5.10072e14 sq m).
private double area(ArrayList<Double> lats,ArrayList<Double> lons)
{
double sum=0;
double prevcolat=0;
double prevaz=0;
double colat0=0;
double az0=0;
for (int i=0;i<lats.size();i++)
{
double colat=2*Math.atan2(Math.sqrt(Math.pow(Math.sin(lats.get(i)*Math.PI/180/2), 2)+ Math.cos(lats.get(i)*Math.PI/180)*Math.pow(Math.sin(lons.get(i)*Math.PI/180/2), 2)),Math.sqrt(1- Math.pow(Math.sin(lats.get(i)*Math.PI/180/2), 2)- Math.cos(lats.get(i)*Math.PI/180)*Math.pow(Math.sin(lons.get(i)*Math.PI/180/2), 2)));
double az=0;
if (lats.get(i)>=90)
{
az=0;
}
else if (lats.get(i)<=-90)
{
az=Math.PI;
}
else
{
az=Math.atan2(Math.cos(lats.get(i)*Math.PI/180) * Math.sin(lons.get(i)*Math.PI/180),Math.sin(lats.get(i)*Math.PI/180))% (2*Math.PI);
}
if(i==0)
{
colat0=colat;
az0=az;
}
if(i>0 && i<lats.size())
{
sum=sum+(1-Math.cos(prevcolat + (colat-prevcolat)/2))*Math.PI*((Math.abs(az-prevaz)/Math.PI)-2*Math.ceil(((Math.abs(az-prevaz)/Math.PI)-1)/2))* Math.signum(az-prevaz);
}
prevcolat=colat;
prevaz=az;
}
sum=sum+(1-Math.cos(prevcolat + (colat0-prevcolat)/2))*(az0-prevaz);
return 5.10072E14* Math.min(Math.abs(sum)/4/Math.PI,1-Math.abs(sum)/4/Math.PI);
}
You mention "geography" in one of your tags so I can only assume you are after the area of a polygon on the surface of a geoid. Normally, this is done using a projected coordinate system rather than a geographic coordinate system (i.e. lon/lat). If you were to do it in lon/lat, then I would assume the unit-of-measure returned would be percent of sphere surface.
If you want to do this with a more "GIS" flavor, then you need to select an unit-of-measure for your area and find an appropriate projection that preserves area (not all do). Since you are talking about calculating an arbitrary polygon, I would use something like a Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection. Set the origin/center of the projection to be the center of your polygon, project the polygon to the new coordinate system, then calculate the area using standard planar techniques.
If you needed to do many polygons in a geographic area, there are likely other projections that will work (or will be close enough). UTM, for example, is an excellent approximation if all of your polygons are clustered around a single meridian.
I am not sure if any of this has anything to do with how Matlab's areaint function works.
I don't know anything about Matlab's function, but here we go. Consider splitting your spherical polygon into spherical triangles, say by drawing diagonals from a vertex. The surface area of a spherical triangle is given by
R^2 * ( A + B + C - \pi)
where R is the radius of the sphere, and A, B, and C are the interior angles of the triangle (in radians). The quantity in the parentheses is known as the "spherical excess".
Your n-sided polygon will be split into n-2 triangles. Summing over all the triangles, extracting the common factor of R^2, and bringing all of the \pi together, the area of your polygon is
R^2 * ( S - (n-2)\pi )
where S is the angle sum of your polygon. The quantity in parentheses is again the spherical excess of the polygon.
[edit] This is true whether or not the polygon is convex. All that matters is that it can be dissected into triangles.
You can determine the angles from a bit of vector math. Suppose you have three vertices A,B,C and are interested in the angle at B. We must therefore find two tangent vectors (their magnitudes are irrelevant) to the sphere from point B along the great circle segments (the polygon edges). Let's work it out for BA. The great circle lies in the plane defined by OA and OB, where O is the center of the sphere, so it should be perpendicular to the normal vector OA x OB. It should also be perpendicular to OB since it's tangent there. Such a vector is therefore given by OB x (OA x OB). You can use the right-hand rule to verify that this is in the appropriate direction. Note also that this simplifies to OA * (OB.OB) - OB * (OB.OA) = OA * |OB| - OB * (OB.OA).
You can then use the good ol' dot product to find the angle between sides: BA'.BC' = |BA'|*|BC'|*cos(B), where BA' and BC' are the tangent vectors from B along sides to A and C.
[edited to be clear that these are tangent vectors, not literal between the points]
Here is a Python 3 implementation, loosely inspired by the above answers:
def polygon_area(lats, lons, algorithm = 0, radius = 6378137):
"""
Computes area of spherical polygon, assuming spherical Earth.
Returns result in ratio of the sphere's area if the radius is specified.
Otherwise, in the units of provided radius.
lats and lons are in degrees.
"""
from numpy import arctan2, cos, sin, sqrt, pi, power, append, diff, deg2rad
lats = np.deg2rad(lats)
lons = np.deg2rad(lons)
# Line integral based on Green's Theorem, assumes spherical Earth
#close polygon
if lats[0]!=lats[-1]:
lats = append(lats, lats[0])
lons = append(lons, lons[0])
#colatitudes relative to (0,0)
a = sin(lats/2)**2 + cos(lats)* sin(lons/2)**2
colat = 2*arctan2( sqrt(a), sqrt(1-a) )
#azimuths relative to (0,0)
az = arctan2(cos(lats) * sin(lons), sin(lats)) % (2*pi)
# Calculate diffs
# daz = diff(az) % (2*pi)
daz = diff(az)
daz = (daz + pi) % (2 * pi) - pi
deltas=diff(colat)/2
colat=colat[0:-1]+deltas
# Perform integral
integrands = (1-cos(colat)) * daz
# Integrate
area = abs(sum(integrands))/(4*pi)
area = min(area,1-area)
if radius is not None: #return in units of radius
return area * 4*pi*radius**2
else: #return in ratio of sphere total area
return area
Please find a somewhat more explicit version (and with many more references and TODOs...) here.
You could also have a look at this code of the spherical_geometry package: Here and here. It does provide two different methods for calculating the area of a spherical polygon.
I want to calculate the intersection over union IoU between two rectangles with axes not aligned, but with an angle of the axes smaller than 30 degrees. An approximate value is also seeked.
One possible solution is to check if the angle between the two rectangles is less than 30 degree and than rotate them parallel to aligne the axis. From here it is easy to calculate the IoU.
Another possibility is to use monte carlo methods for the intersection ( generate a point, find if the point is under some line of one rectangle and above some line of the other), but this seems expensive because I need to use this calculation a large number of times.
I was hopping that there is something better out there; maybe a geometry library, or maybe an algorithm from the computer vision folks.
I am trying to learn grasping positions using deep neural networks. My algorithem should predict a bounding box (rectangle) for an object in an rgb image. For any image I have also the ground truth (another rectangle) bounding box. From this two rectangles I need the IoU.
Any idea?
Since you're working in Python, I think the Shapely package would serve your needs.
There is quite effective algorithm for calculation of intersection between two convex polygons, described in O'Rourke book "Computational Geometry in C".
C code is available at the book page (convconv).
Algorithm traverse edges of the first polygon, checking orientations of the second polygon vertices in order to detect intersections. When two consequent vertices lie on the different sides of the edge, intersection occurs (there is a lot of trick cases). Algorithm outline is here
You can consider a number of numerical approaches, practically "rendering" the rectangles into some "canvas"/canvases, and traverse the pixels for making your statistics. The size of the canvas should be the size of the bounding box for the entire scene, practically you can find that via picking the minimum and maximum coordinates occurring for each axis.
1) "most CG" approach: really get a rendering library, render one rectangle with red, other rectangle with transparent blue. Then visit each pixel and if it has a non-0 red component, it belongs to the first rectangle, if it has a non-0 blue component, it belongs to the second rectangle. And if it has both, it belongs to the intersection too. This approach is cheap for coding, but requires both writing and reading the canvas even in the rendering phase, which is slower than just writing. This might be even done on GPU too, though I am not sure if setup costs and getting back the result do not weight out the benefit for such a simple scene.
2) another CG-approach would be rendering into 2 arrays, preferably some 1-byte-per-pixel variant, for the sake of speed (you may have to go back in time a bit in order to find such dedicated rendering libraries). This way the renderer only writes, into one array per rectangle, and you read from two when creating the statistics
3) as writing and reading pixels take time, you can do some shortcut, but it needs more coding: convex shapes can be rendered via collecting the minimum and maximum coordinates per scanline, and just filling between the two. If you do it yourself, you can spare the filling part and also the read-and-check-every-pixel step at the end. Build such min-max list for both rectangles, and then you "just" have to check their relation/order for each scanline, to recognize overlaps
And then there is the mathematical way: this is not really useful, see EDIT below while it is unlikely that you would find some sane algorithm for calculating intersection area, specifically for the case of rectangles, if you find such algorithm for triangles, which is more probable, that would be enough. Both rectangles can be split into two triangles, 1A+1B and 2A+2B respectively, and then you just have to run such algorithm 4 times: 1A-2A, 1A-2B, 1B-2A, 1B-2B, sum the results and that is the area of your intersection.
EDIT: for the maths approach (though this also comes from graphics), I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland%E2%80%93Hodgman_algorithm can be applied here (as both rectangles are convex polygons, A-B and B-A should produce the same result) for finding the intersection polygon, and then the remaining task is to calculate the area of that polygon (here and now I think it is going to be convex, and then it is really easy).
I ended up using Sutherland-Hodgman algorithm implemented as this functions:
def clip(subjectPolygon, clipPolygon):
def inside(p):
return(cp2[0]-cp1[0])*(p[1]-cp1[1]) > (cp2[1]-cp1[1])*(p[0]-cp1[0])
def computeIntersection():
dc = [ cp1[0] - cp2[0], cp1[1] - cp2[1] ]
dp = [ s[0] - e[0], s[1] - e[1] ]
n1 = cp1[0] * cp2[1] - cp1[1] * cp2[0]
n2 = s[0] * e[1] - s[1] * e[0]
n3 = 1.0 / (dc[0] * dp[1] - dc[1] * dp[0])
return [(n1*dp[0] - n2*dc[0]) * n3, (n1*dp[1] - n2*dc[1]) * n3]
outputList = subjectPolygon
cp1 = clipPolygon[-1]
for clipVertex in clipPolygon:
cp2 = clipVertex
inputList = outputList
outputList = []
s = inputList[-1]
for subjectVertex in inputList:
e = subjectVertex
if inside(e):
if not inside(s):
outputList.append(computeIntersection())
outputList.append(e)
elif inside(s):
outputList.append(computeIntersection())
s = e
cp1 = cp2
return(outputList)
def PolygonArea(corners):
n = len(corners) # of corners
area = 0.0
for i in range(n):
j = (i + 1) % n
area += corners[i][0] * corners[j][1]
area -= corners[j][0] * corners[i][1]
area = abs(area) / 2.0
return area
intersection = clip(rec1, rec2)
intersection_area = PolygonArea(intersection)
iou = intersection_area/(PolygonArea(rec1)+PolygonArea(rec2)-intersection_area)
Another slower method (don't know what algorithm) could be:
from shapely.geometry import Polygon
p1 = Polygon(rec1)
p2 = Polygon(rec2)
inter_sec_area = p1.intersection(rec2).area
iou = inter_sec_area/(p1.area + p2.area - inter_sec_area)
It is worth mentioning that in just one case with bigger polygons (not my case) the shapely module had an area twice greater than the first method. I didn't test both methods intensively.
This might help
What about using Pythagorean theorem ? Since you have two rectangles, when they intersect, you will have one or more triangles, each with one angle of 90°.
Since you also know the angle between the two rectangles (20° in my example), and the coordinates of each rectangle, you can use the the appropriate function (cos/sin/tan) to know the length of all the edges of the triangles.
I hope this can help
I've been tasked with writing a python based plugin for a graph drawing program that generates an STL model of a graph. A graph being an object made up of vertices and edges, where a vertex is represented by a 3D ball (a tessellated icosahedron), and an edge is represented with a cylinder that connects with two balls at either end. The end result of the 3D model is that it will get dumped out to an STL file for 3D printing. I'm able to generate the 3D models for the balls and cylinders without any issues, but I'm having some issues generating the overall model, and getting the balls and cylinders to connect properly.
My original idea was to create tessellated icosahedrons at the origin, then translate them out to the positions of the vertices. This works fine. I then, for each edge, I would create a cylinder at the origin, rotate it to the correct angle so that it points in the correct direction, then translate it to the midpoint between the two vertices so that the ends of the cylinders are embedded in the icosahedrons. This is where things are going wrong. I'm having some difficulties getting the rotations correct. To calculate the rotations, I'm doing the following:
First, I find the angle between the two points as follows (where source and target are both vertices in the graph, belonging to the edge that I'm currently processing):
deltaX = source.x - target.x
deltaY = source.y - target.y
deltaZ = source.z - target.z
xyAngle = math.atan2(deltaX, deltaY)
xzAngle = math.atan2(deltaX, deltaZ)
yzAngle = math.atan2(deltaY, deltaZ)
The angles being calculated seem reasonable, and as far as I can tell, do actually represent the angle between the vertices. For example, if I have a vertex at (1, 1, 0) and another vertex at (3, 3, 0), the angle edge connecting them does show up as a 45 degree angle between the two vertices. (That, or -135 degrees, depending which vertex is the source and which is the target).
Once I have the angles calculated, I create a cylinder and rotate it by the angles that have been calculated, like so, using some other classes that I've created:
c = cylinder()
c.createCylinder(edgeThickness, edgeLength)
c.rotateX(-yzAngle)
c.rotateY(xzAngle)
c.rotateZ(-xyAngle)
c.translate(edgePosition.x, edgePosition.y, edgePosition.z)
(Where edgePosition is the midpoint between the two vertices in the graph, edgeThickness is the radius of the cylinder being created, and edgeLength is the distance between the two vertices).
As mentioned, its the rotating of the cylinders that doesn't work as expected. It seems to do the correct rotation on the x/y plane, but as soon as an edge has vertices that differ in all three components (x, y, and z), the rotation fails. Here's an example of a graph that differs in the x, and y components, but not in the z component:
And here's the resulting STL file, as seen in Makerware (which is used to send the 3D models to the 3D printer):
(The extra cylinder looking bit in the bottom left is something I've currently left in for testing purposes - a cylinder that points in the direction of the z axis, located at the origin).
If I take that same graph and move the middle vertex out in the z axis, so now all the edges involve angles in all three axis, I get a result something like the following:
As show in the app:
The resulting STL file, as show in Makerware:
...and that same model as viewed from the side:
As you can see, the cylinders definitely aren't meeting up with the balls like I thought they would. My question is this: Is my approach to doing this flawed, or is it some small but critical mistake that I'm making somewhere in my rotations? I'm pretty sure it isn't a problem with the rotation functions themselves, as I've been able to independently verify that they work as expected. I also tried creating a rotate function that takes in a yaw, pitch, and roll and does all three at once, and it seemed to generate the same result, like so:
c.rotateYawPitchRoll(xzAngle, -yzAngle, -xyAngle)
So... anyone have any ideas on what I might be doing wrong?
UPDATE: As joojaa pointed out, it was a combination of calculating the correct angles as well as the order that they were applied. In order to get things working, I first calculate the rotation on the x axis, as follows:
zyAngle = math.atan2(deltaVector.z, deltaVector.y)
where deltaVector is the difference between the target and source vectors. This rotation is not yet applied though! The next step is to calculate the rotation on the y axis, as follows:
angle = vector.angleBetweenVectors(vector(target.x - source.x, target.y - source.y, target.z - source.z), vector(target.x - source.x, target.y - source.y, 0.0))
Once both rotations are calculated, they are then applied... in the reverse order! First, the x, then the y:
c.rotateY(angle)
c.rotateX(-zyAngle) #... where c is a cylinder object
There still seems to be a few bugs, but this seems to at least work for a simple test case.
Rotation happens in successive order, so the angles affect each other. It is not possible to use a Euler model to rotate them at once. This is why you can not just calculate the rotations based on the first static situation. Just imagine turning a cube so that it is standing on its corner upright. Yes the first rotation is 45 but the second is not since the cube is already turned by that time (draw a each step of the sequence and see what happens). Space rotations aren't trivial.
So you need to rotate one angle then re calculate the second angle and so forth. This is also why your first rotation works right. You only need 2 rotations unless your interested in making sure the rotation around the shaft has a certain direction.
I would suggest you use axis angles or matrices instead to do this. Mainly because in axis angles this is trivial the angle is the dot between the along tube start and end vectors and the axis is the cross between those 2. You can then convert those to Euler angles if you need. But probably you can just use the matrix directly. For ideas on how conversions and how the rotation could directly be calculated see: transformations.py by Christoph Gohlke. Also see the accompanying c source.
I think i need to expand this answer a bit
There is a really easy way out for this question that sidesteps all your and many other persons problems. The answer is do not use Euler angle rotation. Ive used a lot of brainpower to try to explain Euler rotations to problems that are ultimately solved more easily without Euler rotations. To justify i will leave just one reason for this if you want more think up of some more answers.
The reason most to use Euler rotation sequences is that you probably don't understand Euler angles. There are in fact only a handful of situations where they are good. No self respecting programmer uses Euler rotations to solve this issue. What you do is you use vector math instead.
So you have the direction vector from the source to target which is usually calculated:
along = normalize(target-source)
this is simply one of your matrix rows (or column notation is up to model maker), the one that corresponds to your cylinders original direction (the rows are just x y z w), then you need another vector perpendicular to this one. Choose a arbitrary vector like up (or left if your along is pointing close to up). cross product this up vector by your along for the second row direction. and finally put your source as the last row with 1 in the last column. Done fully formed affine matrix describing the cylinders prition. Much easier to understand since you can draw the vectors.
There are shorter ways but this one is easy to understand.
I need a way to characterize the size of sets of 2-D points, so I can determine whether to render them as individual points in a space or as representative polygons, dependent on the scale of the viewport. I already have an algorithm to calculate the convex hull of the set to produce the representative polygon, but I need a way to characterize its size. One obvious measure is the maximum distance between points on the convex hull, which is the diameter of the set. But I'm really more interested in the size of its cross-section perpendicular to its diameter, to figure out how narrow the bounding polygon is. Is there a simple way to do this, given the sorted list of vertices and and the indices of the furthest points (ideally in Python)?
Or alternatively, is there an easy way to calculate the radii of the minimal area bounding ellipse of a set of points? I have seen some approaches to this problem, but nothing that I can readily convert to Python, so I'm really looking for something that's turnkey.
You can compute:
the size of its cross-section perpendicular to its diameter
with the following steps:
Find the convex hull
Find the two points a and b which are furthest apart
Find the direction vector d = (a - b).normalized() between those two
Rotate your axes so that this direction vector lies horizontal, using the matrix:
[ d.x, d.y]
[-d.y, d.x]
Find the minimum and maximum y value of points in this new coordinate system. The difference is your "width"
Note that this is not a particularly good definition of "width" - a better one is:
The minimal perpendicular distance between two distinct parallel lines each having at least one point in common with the polygon's boundary but none with the polygon's interior
Another useful definition of size might be twice the average distance between points on the hull and the center
center = sum(convexhullpoints) / len(convexhullpoints)
size = 2 * sum(abs(p - center) for p in convexhullpoints) / len(convexhullpoints)