We Keep Coding

How to find curve corner points using JTS or NTS?

I have a curve (say JTS edge):
How to find all curve direction change points that surpasses given angle using JTS (Java) or NTS (C#):

I did some research and made some tests on JTS, and the best way I found is:
Create polygons and use the function union
Then iterate over the Coordinates, and create a sub-array on each "hard angle" (negative scalar product) and when the sum of angle reaches 180 (don't take the last angle to avoid non-function issues)
Then I change the base to an orthonormal base with x(firstElemOfSubArray, lastElemOfSubArray) by computing the base-changing matrix, and I then recompute the sub-array in a new coordinate system
I then create a function using org.apache.commons.math3.analysis.interpolation.SplineInterpolator to interpolate the function of the course, and then I get the derivative and search the extrema (don't take elements with an ordinate that is too low). With its absysse you can find which point is an inflexion point
So the point you search for are first elements of each sub array, and its inflections points (if there are any)

Fix collision detection penetration

I am implementing collision detection in my game, and am having a bit of trouble understanding how to calculate the vector to fix my shape overlap upon collision.
Say for example, I have two squares. squareA and squareB. For both of them, I know their xCo, yCo, width and height. squareA is moving however, so he has a velocity magnitude, and a velocity angle. Let's pretend I update the game once a second. I have illustrated the situation below.
Now, I need a formula to get the vector to fix the overlap. If I apply this vector onto the red square (squareA), they should not be overlapping anymore. This is what I am looking to achieve.
Can anyone help me figure out the formula to calculate the vector?
Bonus points if constructed in Java.
Bonus bonus points if you type out the answer instead of linking to a collision detection tutorial.
Thanks guys!
Also, how do I calculate the new velocity magnitude and angle? I would like sqaureA to continue moving along the x axis (sliding along the top of the blue square)

I had an function that looked something like this:
Position calculateValidPosition(Position start, Position end)
Position middlePoint = (start + end) /2
if (middlePoint == start || middlePoint == end)
return start
if( isColliding(middlePont) )
return calculateValidPosition(start, middlePoint)
else
return calculate(middlePoint, end)
I just made this code on the fly, so there would be a lot of room for improvements... starting by not making it recursive.
This function would be called when a collision is detected, passing as a parameter the last valid position of the object, and the current invalid position.
On each iteration, the first parameter is always valid (no collition), and the second one is invalid (there is collition).
But I think this can give you an idea of a possible solution, so you can adapt it to your needs.

Your question as stated requires an answer that is your entire application. But a simple answer is easy enough to provide.
You need to partition your space with quad-trees
You seem to indicate that only one object will be displaced when a collision is detected. (For the case of multiple interpenetrating objects, simply correct each pair of objects in the set until none are overlapping.)
Neither an elastic nor an inelastic collision is the desired behavior. You want a simple projection of the horizontal velocity (of square A), so Vx(t-1) = Vx(t+1), Vy(t-1) is irrelevant and Vy(t+1)=0. Here t is the time of collision.
The repositioning of Square A is simple.
Define Cn as the vector from the centroid of A to the vertex n (where the labeling of the vertices is arbitrary).
Define A(t-1) as the former direction of A.
Define Dn as the dot product of A(t-1) and the vector Cn
Define Rn as the width of A measured along Cn (and extending past the centroid in the opposite direction).
Define Sn as the dilation of B by a radius of Rn.
Let j be the vertex of B with highest y-value.
Let k be the vertex that is most nearly the front corner of A [in the intuitive sense, where the value of Dn indicates that Ck is most nearly parallel to A(t-1)].
Let K be the antipodal edge or vertex of A, relative to k.
Finally, translate A so that k and j are coincident and K is coincident with Sk.

Java library for 2d path comparison

I have one 2d line (it can be a curved line, with loops and so on), and multiple similar paths. I want to compare the first path with the rest, and determine which one is the most similar (in percentage if possible).
I was thinking maybe transforming the paths into bitmaps and then using a library to compare the bitmaps, but that seems like overkill. In my case, I have only an uninterrupted path, made of points, and no different colors or anything.
Can anyone help me?
Edit:
So the first line is the black one. I compare all other lines to it. I want a library or algorithm that can say: the red line is 90% accurate (because it has almost the same shape, and is close to the black one); the blue line is 5% accurate - this percentage is made up for this example... - because it has a similar shape, but it's smaller and not close to the black path.
So the criterion of similarity would be:
how close the lines are one to another
what shape do they have
how big they are
(color doesn't matter)
I know it's impossible to find a library that considers all this. But the most important comparisons should be: are they the same shape and size? The distance I can calculate on my own.

I can think of two measures to express similarity between two lines N (defined as straight line segments between points p0, p1... pr)
M (with straight line segments between q0, q1, ...qs). I assume that p0 and q0 are always closer than p0 and qs.
1) Area
Use the sum of the areas enclosed between N and M, where N and M are more different as the area gets larger.
To get N and M to form a closed shape you should connect p0 and q0 and pr and qs with straight line segments.
To be able to calculate the surface of the enclosed areas, introduce new points at the intersections between segments of N and M, so that you get one or more simple polygons without holes or self-intersections. The area of such a polygon is relatively straightforward to compute (search for "polygon area calculation" around on the web), sum the areas and you have your measure of (dis)similarity.
2) Sampling
Take a predefined number (say, 1000) of sample points O that lie on N (either evenly spaced with respect to the entire line, or evenly spaced
over each line segment of N). For each sample point o in O, we'll calculate the distance to the closest corresponding point on M: the result is the sum of these distances.
Next, reverse the roles: take the sample points from M and calculate each closest corresponding point on N, and sum their distances.
Whichever of these two produces the smallest sum (they're likely not the same!) is the measure of (dis)similarity.
Note: To locate the closest corresponding point on M, locate the closest point for every straight line segment in M (which is simple algebra, google for "shortest distance between a point and a straight line segment"). Use the result from the segment that has the smallest distance to o.
Comparison
Method 1 requires several geometric primitives (point, line segment, polygon) and operations on them (such as calculating intersection points and polygon areas),
in order to implement. This is more work, but produces a more robust result and is easier to optimize for lines consisting of lots of line segments.
Method 2 requires picking a "correct" number of sample points, which can be hard if the lines have alternating parts with little detail
and parts with lots of detail (i.e. a lot of line segments close together), and its implementation is likely to quickly get (very) slow
with a large number of sample points (matching every sample point against every line segment is a quadratic operation).
On the upside, it doesn't require a lot of geometric operations and is relatively easy to implement.

Example of how to interpolate a Z value for a point using the Delaunay Triangulation in JTS

This is a fairly remedial question. I have been looking at the documentation for the JTS DelaunayTriangulationBuilder and I am at a loss as to how to do what seems like it should be a simple thing. I wish to take a series of points, triangulate them, and then interpolate the Z value of a random point within that mesh. It's non-obvious from a cursory reading how to do this. Any ideas?

After you've loaded up the triangulation object, call getSubdivision() on it to get the triangulation. It uses a quad-edge data structure, which you'll need later. (It's easier to understand if you know what a half-edge or winged-edge representation is.) The resulting QuadEdgeSubdivision has a method locate that, given a coordinate, returns one of the edges of the enclosing triangle (as a quad-edge). Get its origin vertex with orig() and its destination vertex with dest(). Get another edge with oNext() Its destination vertex is the third vertex (also dPrev().origin() is the same vertex). Now that you have the three vertices, represent your test point as a Vertex and call interpolateZValue.
For example:
public static double
interpolateZ(DelaunayTriangulationBuilder triangulation,
Coordinate coordinate) {
QuadEdgeSubdivision quadEdgeSubdivision = triangulation.getSubdivision();
QuadEdge edge = quadEdgeSubdivision.locate(coordinate);
return new Vertex(coordinate.x, coordinate.y)
.interpolateZValue(edge.orig(), edge.dest(), edge.oNext().dest());
}
You're right, though. It's not obvious how to do this from reading their API.

I'm not familiar with JTS DelauneyTriangulationBuilder, but it sounds like you have a collection of points (x,y,z), and you are submitting the 2D (x,y) pairs to the triangulator. This gives you a planar triangulation of the (x,y) points, but also a mesh who's vertices are the original (x,y,z) points.
Once you have a triangulation, you wish to find the point (p,q,r) on the mesh that corresponds to the planar point (p,q). To do so, find the triangle T of the Delauney triangulation that contains (p,q). Find the barycentric coordinates of (p,q) relative to T, and use these to compute a weighted average r of the z values corresponding to the vertices of T. That weighted average is the Z value you're looking for. In other words, (p,q,r) is on the mesh.

Guarantee outward direction of polygon normals

I'm trying to write a 2D game in Java that uses the Separating Axis Theorem for collision detection. In order to resolve collisions between two polygons, I need to know the Minimum Translation Vector of the collision, and I need to know which direction it points relative to the polygons (so that I can give one polygon a penalty force along that direction and the other a penalty force in the opposite direction). For reference, I'm trying to implement the algorithm here.
I'd like to guarantee that if I call my collision detection function collide(Polygon polygon1, Polygon polygon2) and it detects a collision, the returned MTV will always point away from polygon1, toward polygon2. In order to do this, I need to guarantee that the separating axes that I generate, which are the normals of the polygon edges, always point away from the polygon that generated them. (That way, I know to negate any axis from polygon2 before using it as the MTV).
Unfortunately, it seems that whether or not the normal I generate for a polygon edge points towards the interior of the polygon or the exterior depends on whether the polygon's points are declared in clockwise or counterclockwise order. I'm using the algorithm described here to generate normals, and assuming that I pick (x, y) => (y, -x) for the "perpendicular" method, the resulting normals will only point away from the polygon if I iterate over the vertices in clockwise order.
Given that I can't force the client to declare the points of the polygon in clockwise order (I'm using java.awt.Polygon, which just exposes two arrays for x and y coordinates), is there a mathematical way to guarantee that the direction of the normal vectors I generate is toward the exterior of the polygon? I'm not very good at vector math, so there may be an obvious solution to this that I'm missing. Most Internet resources about the SAT just assume that you can always iterate over the vertices of a polygon in clockwise order.

You can just calculate which direction each polygon is ordered, using, for example, the answer to this question, and then multiply your normal by -1 if the two polygons have different orders.
You could also check each polygon passed to your algorithm to see if it is ordered incorrectly, again using the algorithm above, and reverse the vertex order if necessary.
Note that when calculating the vertex order, some algorithms will work for all polygons and some just for convex polygons.

I finally figured it out, but the one answer posted was not the complete solution so I'm not going to accept it. I was able to determine the ordering of the polygon using the basic algorithm described in this SO answer (also described less clearly in David Norman's link), which is:
for each edge in polygon:
sum += (x2 - x1) * (y2 + y1)
However, there's an important caveat which none of these answers mention. Normally, you can decide that the polygon's vertices are clockwise if this sum is positive, and counterclockwise if the sum is negative. But the comparison is inverted in Java's 2D graphics system, and in fact in many graphics systems, because the positive y axis points downward. So in a normal, mathematical coordinate system, you can say
if sum > 0 then polygon is clockwise
but in a graphics coordinate system with an inverted y-axis, it's actually
if sum < 0 then polygon is clockwise
My actual code, using Java's Polygon, looked something like this:
//First, find the normals as if the polygon was clockwise
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < polygon.npoints; i++) {
int nextI = (i + 1 == polygon.npoints ? 0 : i + 1);
sum += (polygon.xpoints[nextI] - polygon.xpoints[i]) *
(polygon.ypoints[nextI] + polygon.ypoints[i]);
}
if(sum > 0) {
//reverse all the normals (multiply them by -1)
}