We Keep Coding

Considering only 3D points, wouldn't this naive approach to the "smallest enclosing ball" be good enough?

Lets use C# in our example.
public class Sphere
{
public Point Center { get; set; }
public float Radius { get; set; }
public Sphere(IEnumerable<Point> points)
{
Point first = points.First();
Point vecMaxZ = first;
Point vecMinZ = first;
Point vecMaxY = first;
Point vecMinY = first;
Point vecMinX = first;
Point vecMaxX = first;
foreach (Point current in points)
{
if (current.X < vecMinX.X)
{
vecMinX = current;
}
if (current.X > vecMaxX.X)
{
vecMaxX = current;
}
if (current.Y < vecMinY.Y)
{
vecMinY = current;
}
if (current.Y > vecMaxY.Y)
{
vecMaxY = current;
}
if (current.Z < vecMinZ.Z)
{
vecMinZ = current;
}
if (current.Z > vecMaxZ.Z)
{
vecMaxZ = current;
}
}
//the lines bellow assure at least 2 points sit on the surface of the sphere.
//I'm pretty sure the algorithm is solid so far, unless I messed up the if/elses.
//I've been over this, looking at the variables and the if/elses and they all
//seem correct, but our own errors are the hardest to spot,
//so maybe there's something wrong here.
float diameterCandidateX = vecMinX.Distance(vecMaxX);
float diameterCandidateY = vecMinY.Distance(vecMaxY);
float diameterCandidateZ = vecMinZ.Distance(vecMaxZ);
Point c;
float r;
if (diameterCandidateX > diameterCandidateY)
{
if (diameterCandidateX > diameterCandidateZ)
{
c = vecMinX.Midpoint(vecMaxX);
r = diameterCandidateX / 2f;
}
else
{
c = vecMinZ.Midpoint(vecMaxZ);
r = diameterCandidateZ / 2f;
}
}
else if (diameterCandidateY > diameterCandidateZ)
{
c = vecMinY.Midpoint(vecMaxY);
r = diameterCandidateY / 2f;
}
else
{
c = vecMinZ.Midpoint(vecMaxZ);
r = diameterCandidateZ / 2f;
}
//the lines bellow look for points outside the sphere, and if one is found, then:
//1 let dist be the distance from the stray point to the current center
//2 let diff be the equal to dist - radius
//3 radius will then the increased by half of diff.
//4 a vector with the same direction as the stray point but with magnitude equal to diff is found
//5 the current center is moved by half the vector found in the step above.
//
//the stray point will now be included
//and, I would expect, the relationship between the center and other points will be mantained:
//if distance from p to center = r / k,
//then new distance from p to center' = r' / k,
//where k doesn't change from one equation to the other.
//this is where I'm wrong. I cannot figure out how to mantain this relationship.
//clearly, I'm moving the center by the wrong amount, and increasing the radius wrongly too.
//I've been over this problem for so much time, I cannot think outside the box.
//my whole world is the box. The box and I are one.
//maybe someone from outside my world (the box) could tell me where my math is wrong, please.
foreach (Point current in points)
{
float dist = current.Distance(c);
if (dist > r)
{
float diff = dist - r;
r += diff / 2f;
float scaleFactor = diff / current.Length();
Point adjust = current * scaleFactor;
c += adjust / 2f;
}
}
Center = c;
Radius = r;
}
public bool Contains(Point point) => Center.Distance(point) <= Radius;
public override string ToString() => $"Center: {Center}; Radius: {Radius}";
}
public class Point
{
public float X { get; set; }
public float Y { get; set; }
public float Z { get; set; }
public Point(float x, float y, float z)
{
X = x;
Y = y;
Z = z;
}
public float LengthSquared() => X * X + Y * Y + Z * Z;
public float Length() => (float) Math.Sqrt(X * X + Y * Y + Z * Z);
public float Distance(Point another)
{
return (float) Math.Sqrt(
(X - another.X) * (X - another.X)
+ (Y - another.Y) * (Y - another.Y)
+ (Z - another.Z) * (Z - another.Z));
}
public float DistanceSquared(Point another)
{
return (X - another.X) * (X - another.X)
+ (Y - another.Y) * (Y - another.Y)
+ (Z - another.Z) * (Z - another.Z);
}
public Point Perpendicular()
{
return new Point(-Y, X, Z);
}
public Point Midpoint(Point another)
{
return new Point(
(X + another.X) / 2f,
(Y + another.Y) / 2f,
(Z + another.Z) / 2f);
}
public override string ToString() => $"({X}, {Y}, {Z})";
public static Point operator +(Point p1, Point p2)
{
return new Point(p1.X + p2.X, p1.Y + p2.Y, p1.Z + p2.Z);
}
public static Point operator *(Point p1, float v)
{
return new Point(p1.X * v, p1.Y * v, p1.Z * v);
}
public static Point operator /(Point p1, float v)
{
return new Point(p1.X / v, p1.Y / v, p1.Z / v);
}
}
//Note: this class is here so I can be able to solve the problems suggested by
//Eric Lippert.
public class Line
{
private float coefficient;
private float constant;
public Line(Point p1, Point p2)
{
float deltaY = p2.Y - p1.Y;
float deltaX = p2.X - p1.X;
coefficient = deltaY / deltaX;
constant = coefficient * -p1.X + p1.Y;
}
public Point FromX(float x)
{
return new Point(x, x * coefficient + constant, 0);
}
public Point FromY(float y)
{
return new Point((y - constant) / coefficient, y, 0);
}
public Point Intersection(Line another)
{
float x = (another.constant - constant) / (coefficient - another.coefficient);
float y = FromX(x).Y;
return new Point(x, y, 0);
}
}
Can I safely assume this will run at least just as fast as the fancy algorithms out there that usually consider, for robustness sake, the possibility of the Points having any number of dimensions, from 2 to anything, like 1000 or 10,000 dimensions.
I only need it for 3 dimensions, never more and never less than that. Since I have no academic degree on computer science (or any degree for that matter, I'm a highschool sophomore), I have difficulties in analyzing algorithms for performance and resource consumption. So my question basically is: Is my "smallest enclosing sphere for dumbs" algoritm good in performance and resource consumption when compared with the fancy ones? Is there a point where my algorithm breaks while the professional ones don't, meaning it performs so bad it will cause noticeable loss (like, if I have too many points).
EDIT 1: I editted the code because it made no sense at all (I was hungry, it was 4pm and I haven't eaten all day). This one makes more sense I think, not sure if it's correct though. The original question stands: If this one solves the problem, does it do it well enough to compete with the stardard professional algorithms in case we know in advance that all points have 3 dimensions?
EDIT 2: Now I'm pretty sure the performance is bad, and I lost all hope of implementing a naive algorithm to find the smallest enclosing sphere. I just want to make something that work. Please, check the latest update.
EDIT 3: Doesn't work either. I quit.
EDIT 4: Finally, after, I don't know... some 5 hours. I figured it out. Jesus Christ. This one works. Could someone tell me about the performance issue? Is it really bad compared to the professional algorithms? What lines can I change to make it better? Is there a point where it breaks? Remember, I will always use it for 3D points.
EDIT 5: I learned from Bychenko the previous algorithm still didn't work. I slept on this issue, and this is my new version of the algorithm. I know it doesn't work, and I have a good clue where it is wrong, could anyone please tell why those particular calculations are wrong and how to fix them? I'm inclined to think this has something to do with trigonometry. My assumptions don't hold true for Euclidean space, because I can't stop seeing vectors as real numbers instead
of sets of real numbers that, in my case, I use to pin-point a location in Euclidean space. I'm pretty sure I'm missing some sine or cosine somewhere in the last loop (of course, not exactly sine or cosine, but the equivalent in cartesian coordinates, since we don't know any angles.
Addendum to EDIT 5: About the problems proposed by Eric Lippert:
(1) argh too trivial :p
(2) I will do it for the circle first; I will add a class Line for that.
Point a, b, c; //they are not collinear
Point midOfAB = a.Midpoint(b);
Point midOfBC = b.Midpoint(c);
//multiplying the vector by a scalar as I do bellow doesn't matter right?
Point perpendicularToAB = midOfAB.Perpendicular() * 3;
Point perpendicularToBC = midOfBC.Perpendicular() * 3;
Line bisectorAB = new Line(perpendicularToAB, midOfAB);
Line bisectorBC = new Line(perpendicularToBC, midOfBC);
Point center = bisectorAB.Intersection(bisectorBC);
float distA = center.Distance(a);
float distB = center.Distance(b);
float distC = center.Distance(c);
if(distA == distB && distB == distC)
//it works (spoiler alert: it doesn't)
else
//you're a failure, programmer, pick up your skate and practice some ollies

Sorry, but your algorithm is wrong. It doesn't solve the problem.
Counter example (3 points):
A = (0, 0, 0) - closest to origin (0)
B = (3, 3, 0) - farthest from origin (3 * sqrt(2) == 4.2426...)
C = (4, 0, 0)
your naive algorithm declares that the sphere has center at
P = (3 / sqrt(2), 3 / sqrt(2), 0)
and radius
R = 3 / sqrt(2)
and you can see that the point C = (4, 0, 0) is beyond the sphere
Edit the updated (but naive) algorithm is still wrong.
Counter example (3 points):
A = (0, 0, 0)
B = (1, 2, 0)
C = (4, 1, 0)
according the algorithm the sphere has its center at
P = (2, 1, 0)
with radius
R = sqrt(5)
and you can see that the sphere is not a minimal (smallest) one.
Nth Edit you still have an incorrect algorithm. When exploring gray zone (you know the problem, but partially, with holes) it's a good practice to invest into testing automatition. As you should know, in case of triangle all the vertexes should be on the sphere; let's validate your the solution on this fact:
public static class SphereValidator {
private static Random m_Random = new Random();
private static String Validate() {
var triangle = Enumerable
.Range(0, 3)
.Select(i => new Point(m_Random.Next(100), m_Random.Next(100), m_Random.Next(100)))
.ToArray();
Sphere solution = new Sphere(triangle);
double tolerance = 1.0e-5;
for (int i = 0; i < triangle.Length; ++i) {
double r = triangle[i].Distance(solution.Center);
if (Math.Abs(r - solution.Radius) > tolerance) {
return String.Format("Counter example\r\n A: {0}\r\n B: {1}\r\n C: {2}\r\n expected distance to \"{3}\": {4}; actual R {5}",
triangle[0], triangle[1], triangle[2], (char) ('A' + i), r, solution.Radius);
}
}
return null;
}
public static String FindCounterExample(int attempts = 10000) {
for (int i = 0; i < attempts; ++i) {
String result = Validate();
if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(result))
Console.WriteLine(result);
return;
}
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("Yes! All {0} tests passed!", attempts));
}
}
I've just run the code above and got:
Counter example
A: (3, 30, 9)
B: (1, 63, 40)
C: (69, 1, 16)
expected distance to "A": 35.120849609375; actual R 53.62698

For a crude approximation, compute the Axis-Aligned Bounding Box, then the bounding sphere of that box (same center, diameter = √(W² + H² + D²) ).
You can refine by computing the largest distance from that center.

Sun Script RenderProbe on time of day

I'm tring to make a unity sun script that renders the light probe at certain time of the day taken from an array.
The day is from 0-1 interval ( 0 night, 0.25 sunrise, 0.5 midday, 0.75 sunset, 1 night)
To be honest even if I check the statement currentTimeOfDay == 0.75 when the value is reached the print does not occur
And how do I check the statement for multiple array?
public float secondsInFullDay = 120f;
[Range(0,1)]
public float currentTimeOfDay = 0f;
private float[] floatDay = new float[4] {0f, 0.25f, 0.5f, 0.75f};
public float timeMultiplier = 1f;
void Update() {
currentTimeOfDay += (Time.deltaTime / secondsInFullDay) * timeMultiplier;
if (currentTimeOfDay >= 1) {
currentTimeOfDay = 0;
}
if(currentTimeOfDay == floatDay[0]){
reflectionProbe.RenderProbe();
print ("refresh probe");
}
}
This only prints at 0 value
foreach (float x in floatDay){
if (x.Equals (currentTimeOfDay)){
print ("refresh probe");
}
}
L.E
I managed to check the statement against array but it prints multiple times that means that will cause unnecessary load
If the time timeMultiplier is set to 10 instead of 1 then the print is one time when reached the value.
Is there a way to multiply the array with a float and get new array?
private float[] floatDay = new float[4] {0, 250, 500, 750};
TimeOfDay = currentTimeOfDay * 1000 * timeMultiplier;
TimeOfDay = Mathf.Round(TimeOfDay);
foreach (float x in floatDay){
if (TimeOfDay == x){
reflectionProbe.RenderProbe();
print ("refresh probe");
}
}
L.E 2
fixed it , but doesn't seem that compact but it works
private float[] floatDay = new float[4] {0, 2500, 5000, 7500};
TimeOfDay = currentTimeOfDay * 10000 / timeMultiplier;
TimeOfDay = Mathf.Round(TimeOfDay);
foreach (float x in floatDay){
float y = x / timeMultiplier;
if (TimeOfDay == y){
reflectionProbe.RenderProbe();
print ("refresh probe");
}
}

This only prints at 0 value
foreach (float x in floatDay){
if (x.Equals (currentTimeOfDay)){
print ("refresh probe");
}
}
because floating points are never accurate. Your value in never exactly equal to the value you compare it to.
Use this instead:
foreach (float x in floatDay){
if (x > currentTimeOfDay - 1e-7f && x < currentTimeOfDay + 1e-7f){
print ("refresh probe");
}
}
if it still doesn't work, change 1e-7f to 1e-6f, 1e-5f, etc...

How to calculate the angles XYZ from a Matrix4x4

I am trying to ascertain the X,Y,Z angles held within a Matrix by decomposing the matrix. I am using .net 4.5 c#.
I created a test to check the following:
If I create an Matrix4x4 with identity values only
Rotate the matrix by 45 degrees
Decompose the matrix and evaluate the quaternion returned (gives the x,y,z angles)
Check that the X value out matches the 45 degrees put in
I get the following results:
X:0.5 Y:0 Z:0
I was expecting:
X:0.45 Y:0 Z:0
Test Code
Quaternion quatDecomposed;
Vector3D translation;
Matrix4x4 rot = Matrix4x4.RotationAroundX(45);
rot.DecomposeNoScaling(out quatDecomposed, out translation);
I have created my own Matrix4x4, Vector3D and Angle3D structures shown in the examples below.
My Matrix4x4 rotate around x method is as follows:
public static Matrix4x4 RotationAroundX(double degrees)
{
// [1, 0, 0, 0]
// [0, cos,-sin,0]
// [0, sin,cos, 0]
// [0, 0, 0, 1]
// convert degrees to radians.
double radians = DoubleExtensions.DegreesToRadians(degrees);
// return matrix.
var matrixTransformed = Matrix4x4.Identity;
matrixTransformed.M22 = (float)Math.Cos(radians);
matrixTransformed.M23 = (float)-(Math.Sin(radians));
matrixTransformed.M32 = (float)Math.Sin(radians);
matrixTransformed.M33 = (float)Math.Cos(radians);
//return matrix;
return matrixTransformed;
}
My decompose no scaling method is as follows:
public void DecomposeNoScaling(out Quaternion rotation, out Vector3D translation)
{
translation.X = this[1, 4];
translation.Y = this[2, 4];
translation.Z = this[3, 4];
rotation = new Quaternion(new Matrix3x3(this));
}
What I am looking to get out is the angles contained within the Matrix4x4, I do this as follows:
Angle3D angles = new Angle3D(quatDecomposed.X, quatDecomposed.Y, quatDecomposed.Z);
Can anyone spot what I'm doing wrong? What I am REALLY trying to work out is the Euler angles from the matrix4x4 in ZYX order.
Thanks in advance!

Shouldn't be the last row of the matrix be "1" ?
[1 0 0 0]
[0 cos -sin 0]
[0 sin cos 0]
[0 0 0 1]
(last row last column should be 1)

Just in case anyone else needs to know, this is how I get the Euler angles directly from the Matrix:
public static Angle3D GetAngles(Matrix4x4 source)
{
double thetaX, thetaY, thetaZ = 0.0;
thetaX = Math.Asin(source.M32);
if (thetaX < (Math.PI / 2))
{
if (thetaX > (-Math.PI / 2))
{
thetaZ = Math.Atan2(-source.M12, source.M22);
thetaY = Math.Atan2(-source.M31, source.M33);
}
else
{
thetaZ = -Math.Atan2(-source.M13, source.M11);
thetaY = 0;
}
}
else
{
thetaZ = Math.Atan2(source.M13, source.M11);
thetaY = 0;
}
// Create return object.
Angle3D angles = new Angle3D(thetaX, thetaY, thetaZ);
// Convert to degrees.;
angles.Format = AngleFormat.Degrees;
// Return angles.
return angles;
}

Calculating the Area of a Closed Polygon on a Plane

I'm attempting to calculate the area of a polygon that lies on a plane (a collection co-planar points forming a non-intersecting closed shape), and I know a method that can calculate the area of an irregular (or any) polygon in two dimensions - but not three. My solution is to rotate the plane so that it's normal is 0 in the z direction (so I can treat it like it's 2D) and then run the 2D area function.
The problem is I have NO idea how to actually determine the rotation axes and amounts to flatten a plane on it's Z-axis. I do my rotation through the easiest method I could find for 3 dimensional rotation: Rotation Matrices. So, given that I'm trying to use rotation matrices to do my rotation, how do I figure out the angles to rotate my plane by to be oriented in the same direction as another vector? I don't actually know much calculus or Euclidean geometry, so whichever solution requires me to teach myself the least of both is the ideal solution. Is there a better way?
Here's my attempt below, which doesn't even come close to getting the plane flat on the Z axis. This is an instance method of my "Surface" class, which is a derivative of my "Plane" class, and has an array of co-planar points (IntersectPoints) forming a closed polygon.
public virtual double GetArea()
{
Vector zUnit = new Vector(0, 0, 1); //vector perprendicualr to z
Vector nUnit = _normal.AsUnitVector();
Surface tempSurface = null;
double result = 0;
if (nUnit != zUnit && zUnit.Dot(nUnit) != 0) //0 = perprendicular to z
{
tempSurface = (Surface)Clone();
double xAxisAngle = Vector.GetAxisAngle(nUnit, zUnit, Physics.Formulae.Axes.X);
double yAxisAngle = Vector.GetAxisAngle(nUnit, zUnit, Physics.Formulae.Axes.Y);
double rotationAngle = Vector.GetAxisAngle(nUnit, zUnit, Physics.Formulae.Axes.Z);
tempSurface.Rotate(xAxisAngle, yAxisAngle, rotationAngle); //rotating plane so that it is flat on the Z axis
}
else
{
tempSurface = this;
}
for (int x = 0; x < tempSurface.IntersectPoints.Count; x++) //doing a cross sum of each point
{
Point curPoint = tempSurface.IntersectPoints[x];
Point nextPoint;
if (x == tempSurface.IntersectPoints.Count - 1)
{
nextPoint = tempSurface.IntersectPoints[0];
}
else
{
nextPoint = tempSurface.IntersectPoints[x + 1];
}
double cross1 = curPoint.X * nextPoint.Y;
double cross2 = curPoint.Y * nextPoint.X;
result += (cross1 - cross2); //add the cross sum of each set of points to the result
}
return Math.Abs(result / 2); //divide cross sum by 2 and take its absolute value to get the area.
}
And here are my core rotation and get axis angle methods:
private Vector Rotate(double degrees, int axis)
{
if (degrees <= 0) return this;
if (axis < 0 || axis > 2) return this;
degrees = degrees * (Math.PI / 180); //convert to radians
double sin = Math.Sin(degrees);
double cos = Math.Cos(degrees);
double[][] matrix = new double[3][];
//normalizing really small numbers to actually be zero
if (Math.Abs(sin) < 0.00000001)
{
sin = 0;
}
if (Math.Abs(cos) < 0.0000001)
{
cos = 0;
}
//getting our rotation matrix
switch (axis)
{
case 0: //x axis
matrix = new double[][]
{
new double[] {1, 0, 0},
new double[] {0, cos, sin * -1},
new double[] {0, sin, cos}
};
break;
case 1: //y axis
matrix = new double[][]
{
new double[] {cos, 0, sin},
new double[] {0, 1, 0},
new double[] {sin * -1, 0, cos}
};
break;
case 2: //z axis
matrix = new double[][]
{
new double[] {cos, sin * -1, 0},
new double[] {sin, cos, 0},
new double[] {0, 0, 1}
};
break;
default:
return this;
}
return Physics.Formulae.Matrix.MatrixByVector(this, matrix);
}
public static double GetAxisAngle(Point a, Point b, Axes axis, bool inDegrees = true)
{ //pretty sure this doesnt actually work
double distance = GetDistance(a, b);
double difference;
switch (axis)
{
case Axes.X:
difference = b.X - a.X;
break;
case Axes.Y:
difference = b.Y - a.Y;
break;
case Axes.Z :
difference = b.Z - a.Z;
break;
default:
difference = 0;
break;
}
double result = Math.Acos(difference / distance);
if (inDegrees == true)
{
return result * 57.2957; //57.2957 degrees = 1 radian
}
else
{
return result;
}
}

A robust way to do this is to do a sum of the cross-products of the vertices of each edge. If your vertices are co-planar, this will produce a normal to the plane, whose length is 2 times the area of the closed polygon.
Note that this method is very similar to the 2D method linked in your question, which actually calculates a 2D equivalent of the 3D cross-product, summed for all edges, then divides by 2.
Vector normal = points[count-1].cross(points[0]);
for(int i=1; i<count; ++i) {
normal += points[i-1].cross(points[i]);
}
double area = normal.length() * 0.5;
Advantages of this method:
If your vertices are only approximately planar, it still gives the right answer
It doesn't depend on the angle of the plane.
In fact you don't need to deal with the angle at all.
If you want to know the plane orientation, you've got the normal already.
One possible difficulty: if your polygon is very small, and a long way away from the origin, you can get floating point precision problems. If that case is likely to arise, you should first translate all of your vertices so that one is at the origin, like so:
Vector normal(0,0,0);
Vector origin = points[count-1];
for(int i=1; i<count-1; ++i) {
normal += (points[i-1]-origin).cross(points[i]-origin);
}
double area = normal.length() * 0.5;

You need not to rotate the plane (or all points). Just calculate an area of polygon projection to Z-plane (if it is not perpendicular to polygon plane), for example, with you GetArea function, and divide result by cosinus of Poly-plane - Z-plane angle - it is equal to scalar product of zUnit and nUnit (I suggest that nUnit is normal vector to polygon plane)
TrueArea = GetArea() / zUnit.Dot(nUnit)

finding height on a heightmap stretched over a sphere C#

I'm looking for a bit of math help. I have a game were a 2D heightmap is generated and then stretched over a sphere using a length/direction formula. Now I need to know how to calculate the height between 2 points on my heightmap.
What I know:
The array that holds the heightmap
The angle in radians to my object
how many points there are on the heightmap
My problem look somewhat like so:
image
more images
The red and blue lines are the 2 heightmap points, and the light blue is where I'd like to calculate the height at.
Here's my current code to do it, but it doesn't work to well.
public double getheight(double angle)
{
//find out angle between 2 heightmap point
double offset = MathHelper.TwoPi / (heightmap.Length - 1);
//total brainfart attempt
double lowerAngle = offset * angle;
double upperAngle = offset * angle + offset;
//find heights
double height1 = heightmap[(int)lowerAngle];
double height2 = heightmap[(int)upperAngle];
//find offset angle
double u = angle - lowerAngle / (upperAngle - lowerAngle);
//return the height
return height1 + (height1 - height2) * u;
}
from my vegetation code, this seems to work okay, but is to rough to use for units and such, as they jump up/down as they move, due to it using only 1 heightmap point.
double[] hMap = planet.getHeightMap();
double i = hMap.Length / (Math.PI * 2);
this.height = hMap[(int)(angle * i)];

EDIT: example at end based on additional question info
Sounds to me like a linear interpolation - if you look at it from a 2d point of view, you've got two points:
(x1, y1) = point one on heightmap
(x2, y2) = point two on heightmap
and one point somewhere between (x1,x2) at an unknown height:
pu = (xu, yu)
A generic formula for LERP is:
pu = p0 + (p1 - p0) * u
where:
p0 = first value
p1 = second value
u = % where your unknown point lies between (p0,p1)
Here, we'll say p0 == y2 and p1 == y1. Now we need to determine "how far" the unknown point is between x1 and x2 - if you know the angles to the two heightmap points, this is easy:
u = ang(xu) - ang(x1) / (ang(x2) - ang(x1))
Alternatively, you could project your angle out to Max(y1,y2) and get the "unknown x pos" that way, then calculate the above.
So, let's try a contrived example:
p1 = point one in map = (1,2) therefore ang(p1) ~ 57 degrees
p2 = point two in map = (2,4) therefore ang(p2) ~ 114 degrees
note that here, the "x axis" is along the surface of the sphere, and the "y-axis" is the distance away from the center.
pu = object location = py #angle 100 degrees ~ 1.74 radians
px = (1.74 rad - 1 rad ) / (2 rad - 1 rad) = 0.74 / 1.0 = 0.74 => 74%
py = y0 + (y1 - y0) * u
= 2 + (4 - 2) * 0.74
= 2.96
Hopefully I didn't drop or misplace a sign there somewhere... :)
Ok, your example code - I've tweaked it a bit, here's what I've come up with:
First, let's define some helpers of my own:
public static class MathHelper
{
public const double TwoPi = Math.PI * 2.0;
public static double DegToRad(double deg)
{
return (TwoPi / 360.0) * deg;
}
public static double RadToDeg(double rad)
{
return (360.0 / TwoPi) * rad;
}
// given an upper/lower bounds, "clamp" the value into that
// range, wrapping over to lower if higher than upper, and
// vice versa
public static int WrapClamp(int value, int lower, int upper)
{
return value > upper ? value - upper - 1
: value < lower ? upper - value - 1
: value;
}
}
Our Test setup:
void Main()
{
var random = new Random();
// "sea level"
var baseDiameter = 10;
// very chaotic heightmap
heightmap = Enumerable
.Range(0, 360)
.Select(_ => random.NextDouble() * baseDiameter)
.ToArray();
// let's walk by half degrees, since that's roughly how many points we have
for(double i=0;i<360;i+=0.5)
{
var angleInDegrees = i;
var angleInRads = MathHelper.DegToRad(i);
Console.WriteLine("Height at angle {0}°({1} rad):{2} (using getheight:{3})",
angleInDegrees,
angleInRads,
heightmap[(int)angleInDegrees],
getheight(angleInRads));
}
}
double[] heightmap;
And our "getheight" method:
// assume: input angle is in radians
public double getheight(double angle)
{
//find out angle between 2 heightmap point
double dTheta = MathHelper.TwoPi / (heightmap.Length);
// our "offset" will be how many dThetas we are
double offset = angle / dTheta;
// Figure out two reference points in heightmap
// THESE MAY BE THE SAME POINT, if angle ends up
// landing on a heightmap index!
int lowerAngle = (int)offset;
int upperAngle = (int)Math.Round(
offset,
0,
MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero);
// find closest heightmap points to angle, wrapping
// around if we go under 0 or over max
int closestPointIndex = MathHelper.WrapClamp(
lowerAngle,
0,
heightmap.Length-1);
int nextPointIndex = MathHelper.WrapClamp(
upperAngle,
0,
heightmap.Length-1);
//find heights
double height1 = heightmap[closestPointIndex];
double height2 = heightmap[nextPointIndex];
// percent is (distance from angle to closest angle) / (angle "step" per heightmap point)
double percent = (angle - (closestPointIndex * dTheta)) / dTheta;
// find lerp height = firstvalue + (diff between values) * percent
double lerp = Math.Abs(height1 + (height2 - height1) * percent);
// Show what we're doing
Console.WriteLine("Delta ang:{0:f3}, Offset={1:f3} => compare indices:[{2}, {3}]",
dTheta,
offset,
closestPointIndex,
nextPointIndex);
Console.WriteLine("Lerping {0:p} between heights {1:f4} and {2:f4} - lerped height:{3:f4}",
percent,
height1,
height2,
lerp);
return lerp;
}