Can someone give a simple explanation of the difference between these in MuJoCo?
These often come together.
mjModel.foo_pos is the position of a thing in its parent, like the position of a geom in a body. These quantities are fixed and defined the shape of the model (hence, they are in mjModel).
mjData.qpos are the joint angles. This is the configuration and constitutes half of the mechanical state (the other half being mjData.qvel). Generally any name that starts with q means "in joint space".
mjData.foo_xpos means Cartesian positions in the global world frame. Again, any name that starts with x means "in global Cartesian space".
Related
So, I am beginner in Unreal Engine 4. I am having trouble understanding "Make Rotator" and "Break Rotator" on Movement Input of the character blueprint class. The original definition UE4 documentation has made me even more confused. Can anyone explain this in a simple way?
A FRotator (or just Rotator in BP) is Unreal's way of storing rotations.
Usually, there are two main ways rotations are represented in programs:
As three separate rotation values per-axis, which is called Euler rotation: one for how much you rotate on X, one for Y, one for Z. This is the "older" approach, and has its issues, mainly gimbal lock. Also, there's no standard, and different programs apply them in different orders (some programs do ZXY: Z first, X second, Y third, but other do XYZ etc).
To solve the issues with Euler rotations, another option is used, with four separate values: three values denote the axis of rotation, and another one denotes the angle. This axis-and-angle value is called a quaternion (beacuse it has four values, quat is four in latin). Since any unique rotation mathematically can be expressed as an axis and angle, quaternion rotations are free of gimbal lock, and aren't dependent on any order.
Unreal internally uses quaternions (FQuat), but they're a bit harder to explain and understand, than just three X Y Z rotations. Because of that, FQuat is only for C++, and on the Blueprint level the editor simply shows the rotation as three axis. That's what the Rotator is for.
When you break a rotator, you just separate out the three float values for the XYZ rotations. When you make a rotator out of three float values, it makes the rotation that would result from them.
These break and make nodes exist for many other types, like FVector (shown in BP as just Vector), FLinearColor (Linear Color), to easily make a more complicated thing, like a color or rotation, out of simple float values.
Having said this, since the Rotator really represents an axis and angle, it's better not to use the make Rotator node, but the rotator from axis and angle node.
Rotators are quite convenient, because there are many functions in Unreal to work with them, such as Lerp (Rotator) and others.
Break Rotator : allows access to the elements of the rotator.
Make Rotator : Make a rotator with three values.
I have a big spherical Gameobject which moves forward in 3D with constant velocity. I have other spherical objects that other big object needs to attract to itself. I am using Newton's law of universal gravitation formula to attract other objects, but as expected, other objects are doing a slingshot movement much like the space shuttles doing when needed with other planets' orbits to accelerate.
I actually want a magnetic effect that without taking the masses into account, all other objects will be catched by the big object. How can I do that? Do I need a different formula? Or do I need to change the movement behavior of the objects altogether?
If I got it right you expect to have something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33EpYi3uTnQ
You can do a spherical raycast or have an sphere collider as trigger to detected the objects that are inside of your magnetic field.
Once you know those objects you can calculate the distance from each of them to the magnetic ball.
You can make an inverse interpolation to know how much strength/"magnetism" is getting into that object.
Then you can apply some force on the attracted object towards the magnetic ball's center.
Something like this algorithm:
var objectsInsideField = ListOfObjects;
foreach (o in objectsInsideField) {
var distance = (o.position - center.position).magnitude;
var strength = distance / fieldRadius; // fieldRadius == spherical radius
o.AddForce(dir: o.position - center.position, strength: strength)
}
Of course, you need to do some adjustments and probably add some multipliers to make the force to be meaning.
The final result should be: for each sequential frame, if the object is inside the magnetic field it moves towards the center a bit. The next frame it should be even close to the center so the strength is even bigger.. and so and so.
First of all, since the big objects is moving with constant velocity, a coordinate frame with axes parallel to the axes of the original coordinate system will be moving uniformly with constant velocity, so this new moving coordinate system is also inertial and you can write all your equations of motion in it, calculate everything with respect to it, and at the end you add the uniform movement to the results. The benefit is that the big object is stationary in this coordinate system, so simpler physics applies.
The slingshot effect occurs most likely because your objects are treated as mass-points, rather than bigger 3D entities (like spheres), for which the centers of mass never get too close enough. Hence maybe some sort of collision detection may eliminate this problem, especially if you decrease significantly or kill completely the elastic collision resolution.
All of what I am saying is a bit speculative as I have no access to details.
I got an experimental data set that looks more or less like this.
I need to determine how big the hysteresis loop is, aka if I look at two points with the same capacity (Y axis), whats the maximum distance between said points (X axis).
The issue is, data points arent located on the same Y value, aka I cant just find max X and min X for every Y and subtract them - that'd be too easy :^)
I figured I can use convex hull (convhull) to calculate the outer envelope of the set, but then I realised, it will only work for the convex part, not the concaved part, but I guess I can divide my data set into smaller subsets and find a sum of them... or something.
And then, assuming I have the data set thats only the outer outline of the data set, I need to calculate distances between left and right border (as shown here), but then again, thats just data set of X and Y, and Id need to find the point where green line crosses outer rim
So here are the questions:
Is there a matlab procedure that calculates the outer outline of data set, that works with the concaved part - kinda like convhull, but better?
Assuming I have the outline data set, is there an easy way to calculate secant line of data set, like shown on second picture??
Thanks for any advice, hope I made what I have in mind clear enough - english isnt my first language
Benji
EDIT 1: Or perhaps there is an easier (?) way to determine, which points form biggest outline? Like... group points into (duh) groups, lets say, those near 20%, 30%, 40%... and then pick two randomly (or brute force pick all possible pairs), one for top boundary, other for bot boundary, and then calculate area of polygon formed this way? Then, select set of points resulting in polygon with biggest area?
EDIT 2: Ooor I could group them like I thought I would before, and then work on only two groups at a time. Find convex hull for two groups, then for two next groups, and when Im done with all the groups, Id only need to find points common to all the group, and find a global hull :D Yeah, that might work :D
I am making a game that involves solving a path through graphs. Depending on the size of the graph this can take a little while so I want to cache my results.
This has me looking for an algorithm to hash a graph to find duplicates.
This is straightforward for exact copies of a graph, I simply use the node positions relative to the top corner. It becomes quite a bit more complicated for rotated or even reflected graphs. I suspect this isn't a new problem, but I'm unsure of what the terminology for it is?
My specific case is on a grid, so a node (if present) will always be connected to its four neighbors, north, south, east and west. In my current implementation each node stores an array of its adjacent nodes.
Suggestions for further reading or even complete algorithms are much appreciated.
My current hashing implementation starts at the first found node in the graph which depends on how i iterate over the playfield, then notes the position of all nodes relative to it. The base graph will have a hash that might be something like: 0:1,0:2,1:2,1:3,-1:1,
I suggest you do this:
Make a function to generate a hash for any graph, position-independent. It sounds like you already have this.
When you first generate the pathfinding solution for a graph, cache it by the hash for that graph...
...Then also generate the 7 other unique forms of that graph (rotated 90deg; rotated 270deg; flipped x; flipped y; flipped x & y; flipped along one diagonal axis; flipped along the other diagonal axis). You can of course generate these using simple vector/matrix transformations. For each of these 7 transformed graphs, you also generate that graph's hash, and cache the same pathfinding solution (which you first apply the same transform to, so the solution maps appropriately to the new graph configuration).
You're done. Later your code will look up the pathfinding solution for a graph, and even if it's an alternate (rotated, flipped) form of the graph you found the earlier solution for, the cache already contains the correct solution.
I spent some time this morning thinking about this and I think this is probably the most optimal solution. But I'll share the other over-analyzed versions of the solution that I was also thinking about...
I was considering the fact that what you really needed was a function that would take a graph G, and return the "canonical version" of G (which I'll call G'), AND the transform matrix required to convert G to G'. (It seemed like you would need the transform so you could apply it to the pathfinding data and get the correct path for G, since you would have just stored the pathfinding data for G'.) You could, of course, look up pathfinding data for G', apply the transform matrix to it, and have your pathfinding solution.
The problem is that I don't think there's any unambiguous and performant way to determine a "canonical version" of G, because it means you have to recognize all 8 variants of G and always pick the same one as G' based on some criteria. I thought I could do something clever by looking at each axis of the graph, counting the number of points along each row/column in that axis, and then rotating/flipping to put the more imbalanced half of the axis always in the top-or-left... in other words, if you pass in "d", "q", "b", "d", "p", etc. shapes, you would always get back the "p" shape (where the imbalance is towards the top-left). This would have the nice property that it should recognize when the graph was symmetrical along a given axis, and not bother to distinguish between the flipped versions on that axis, since they were the same.
So basically I just took the row-by-row/column-by-column point counts, counting the points in each half of the shape, and then rotating/flipping until the count is higher in the top-left. (Note that it doesn't matter that the count would sometimes be the same for different shapes, because all the function was concerned with was transforming the shape into a single canonical version out of all the different possible permutations.)
Where it fell down for me was deciding which axis was which in the canonical case - basically handling the case of whether to invert along the diagonal axis. Once again, for shapes that are symmetrical about a diagonal axis, the function should recognize this and not care; for any other case, it should have a criteria for saying "the axis of the shape that has the property [???] is, in the canonical version, the x axis of the shape, while the other axis will be the y axis". And without this kind of criteria, you can't distinguish two graphs that are flipped about the diagonal axis (e.g. "p" versus "σ"/sigma). The criteria I was trying to use was again "imbalance", but this turned out to be harder and harder to determine, at least the way I was approaching it. (Maybe I should have just applied the technique I was using for the x/y axes to the diagonal axes? I haven't thought through how that would work.) If you wanted to go with such a solution, you'd either need to solve this problem I failed to solve, or else give up on worrying about treating versions that are flipped about the diagonal axis as equivalent.
Although I was trying to focus on solutions that just involved calculating simple sums, I realized that even this kind of summing is going to end up being somewhat expensive to do (especially on large graphs) at runtime in pathfinding code (which needs to be as performant as possible, and which is the real point of your problem). In other words I realized that we were probably both overthinking it. You're much better off just taking a slight hit on the initial caching side and then having lightning-fast lookups based on the graph's position-independent hash, which also seems like a pretty foolproof solution as well.
Based on the twitter conversation, let me rephrase the problem (I hope I got it right):
How to compare graphs (planar, on a grid) that are treated as invariant under 90deg rotations and reflection. Bonus points if it uses hashes.
I don't have a full answer for you, but a few ideas that might be helpful:
Divide the problem into subproblems that are independently solvable. That would make
How to compare the graphs given the invariance conditions
How to transform them into a canonical basis
How to hash this canonical basis subject to tradeoffs (speed, size, collisions, ...)
You could try to solve 1 and 2 in a singe step. A naive geometric approach could be as follows:
For rotation invariance, you could try to count the edges in each direction and rotate the graph so that the major direction always point to the right. If there is no main direction you could see the graph as a point cloud of its vertices and use Eigenvectors and Priciple Compoment Analysis (PCA) to obtain the main direction and rotate it accordingly.
I don't have a smart solution for the reflection problem. My brute force way would be to just create the reflected graph all the time. Say you have a graph g and the reflected graph r(g). If you want to know if some other graph h == g you have to answer h == g || h == r(g).
Now onto the hashing:
For the hashing you probably have to trade off speed, size and collisions. If you just use the string of edges, you are high on speed and size and low on collisions. If you just take this string and apply some generic string hasher to it, you get different results.
If you use a short hash, with more frequent collisions, you can get achieve a rather small cost for comparing non matching graphs. The cost for matching graphs is a bit higher then, as you have to do a full comparison to see if they actually match.
Hope this makes some kind of sense...
best, Simon
update: another thought on the rotation problem if the edges don't give a clear winner: Compute the center of mass of the vertices and see to which side of the center of the bounding box it falls. Rotate accordingly.
When doing SPH, the paper by Kelagar recommends using a particular kernel for pressure induced forces between particles. The kernel it recommends is the following when the radius is within the kernel radius:
(15/(pi*h^9)) * (h - r)^3
where h is the kernel radius, and r is the radius we are interested in calculating the value of a function at.
The paper then states that the gradient of this function is
(-45/(pi*h^9))*((r_vec)/r)*(h-r)^2
where r_vec is now the vector from the center of the kernel to the point we are interested in. As length of r_vec goes to 0 from the positive direction, the paper states that this gradient approaches:
(-45/(pi*h^6))
But this is a scalar, not a vector. In order for there to be a repulsion between the two points we're interested in, there needs to be a direction to repel in.
What direction should we use for when two particles are right next to each other?
I assume that first expression is meant to be a potential. The negative gradient (derivative with respect to r) is then the force. This gradient is a vector, always pointing toward or away from the center. This appears correct for the second expression.
r_vec is, according to what you say, a vector pointing away from the origin to a point at some distance r away. (r_vec/r) is then a unit vector to specify direction. This works at every point except the origin itself, where it can be declared undefined, or declared to be zero. Zero is the average value of (r_vec/r) over all "nearby" points. This means zero force.
Normally in particle simulations with pair-wise forces, we ignore forces of a particle on itself, and of two particle at the same exact position. What about two particle very close, and you have a force law that goes like 1/r, 1/(r^2), or similar? Nobody wants a divide by zero fault. Usually there's a small radius below which the potential is constant matching the given potential formula at the boundary of that radius. Particles too close together have zero force, just so that the simulation won't crash. It may seem unphysical for the force to suddenly cease just inside that boundary when it is fiercely strong just outside it. But we strive to avoid such situations. Keep count of such incidences, and if there are too many, the simulation has gone bad. Maybe a smaller time step is needed.
Luckily you don't have a 1/r type of force, but still you have that nasty r_vec/r whose direction can swing wildly. The same technique of making force zero below a certain tiny radius will help.
But that third expression bothers me. If it's force at r=0, then starting with the force law in the second expression, I'm not sure how the third expression comes about. The problem of it looking scalar while, if it is supposed to be force, expecting vector could be resolved by understanding that it is meant to be the radial component of a force vector. Just multiply the expression by (r_vec/r), the familiar unit-magnitude vector. OTOH, it has no defined direction, so it is nonsense.
Better overall solution: start with a new potential function, one that smoothly levels off and is flat right at r=0, like exp(-r^2) or 1/(1+r^2). The given potential peaks sharply. You want something more like Instead of declaring force zero inside some small zone, the force would just naturally be zero at r=0. Find a flat-at-origin potential that approximates the given one well outside some small radius.