I have the following scenario: i am building a animatronic hand using some flex sensor, arduino board and 5 servo. No problem on this side.
But i have the following idea: to build a 3D CAD model of the hand in Catia, or in any other CAD program, and in real time the virtual hand to copy the movements of the real hand in real time.
I used something in Matlab when i did some plots in real time with some data from some sensor. It is posible to do that in a CAD program? To get the data from arduino and based on that data to simulate the movements of the virtual hand in real time. Can you tell if it posibile in wich program can i do the simulation?
Lucian
This is absolutely possible with Catia as long as your can get your arduino data into the computer. Likely a lot of other CAD software packages too. Such as Solidworks, AutoCAD, UX, etc. They offer an API which would allow you to update the cad model from a script in "real-time" based on your animatronic hand. You could probably go both ways, CAD-drives-Hand and Hand-drives-CAD. The one issue I see happening with a CAD software is the real-time aspect. Depending on the how graphically intensive your CAD model is, there is a computational time overhead to re-draw/update the model position. So, if your hand is moving quickly with complex gestures and you have a complex 3D model, there might be some delay in the movements on screen.
Lastly, you might want to look at animation/cad/rendering software that has a more powerful native rendering engine, like Maya, or Rhino to accomplish this. (I would try Rhino first).
If you choose Catia, please ask a different question or update this one specifically regarding how to control a 3D model via the API and I could help to answer that also.
Related
tl;dr;
How a software developer who get's a very high detailed 3D model, quickly & easily optimize it for mobile apps, so he can focus his time & energy on developing the app logic?
I think it's a pretty common use case and there may be a tool for this already out somewhere.
Long story
I have a 3D model (collada) of a machine. This model being created by the machine's engineering team, contains a lot of minute details essential in creating the machine hardware.
Now, I am developing a mobile app with unity that needs to render this machine along with 10 other machines in a single scene. The thing I like about the available models is that they look exactly like the real stuff. At the same time, I am not interested in the internal stuff, the external shell is just enough for me. I have no interaction with the 3D modelling team (let's assume I downloaded the model from some archive), and hence can't ask them to make any changes for me. The model is all I have. I am on my own.
There are two problems I am facing
How to get rid of the interiors of the models?
How to get rid of the high resolutions details in the external shell which the human eye can't detect in a mobile phone?
To give a sense of the scale, the real equipment and hence the model can be as big as 100 ft. (30 m.) while these will never occupy more than a 5 inch HD display. The size of the models ranges from 50MB to 400MB. The entire scene hence can go up to 2GB. Each model has nearly 300k faces.
The other challenge I am facing is that I am a software developer familiar with code and my familiarity with 3D modelling tools is very limited and I would like it to be that way :) I can play around with these tools, but I don't want to start spending half my time with these tools.
I have tried blender's decimate modifier. But the result's aren't good, the amount of details lost is very uniform, instead of being targeted to the interiors. I don't want to spend time in going through each mesh and deleting them manually.
Also, for some reason when I import a model that is exported from blender into unity, they look horrible (some faces/polygons that I can see in Blender I don't see them in unity), even with 0 decimation.
I am unable to digest the fact that the manual process is the only way. I feel with today's technology this would be a simple automation. The steps as I see are
Detect polygons that aren't directly reachable from any exterior raycasts. If required, I can define the set (14 may be enough) of points for the raycast's origin, basically camera's locations.
Delete these polygons
Detect polygons with dimensions less than a threshold
Delete these polygons
Blender to unity models can have slight problems if you don't export them the right way. How to do this is out of my field as I am also a developer and personally prefer 3DSMax.
What I would reccomend you to do is do what you don't want to do, it is the easiest way. Select the faces (just drag and select) and then just delete them all (the inside faces that is) you should be able to hide the outer shell if you got a propper 3d program, just google how to do it if it's too complicated for you.
If you want to delete smaller details on the outside, do exactly the same... just select the polys and delete them. I wouldn't reccomend using a build in tool because most of those tend to take the whole object and make it less polys or more polys depending on what tool you use.
In the end next time just try to get in to the program, as a programmer I dislike having to use 3D modelling software as well, but it is part of the job, so put some effort in and just learn the tools. It's less work than it seems.
Edit: As for the tools you are asking for, those do not really exist, you don't normally take a high poly model and change it to a low poly model for a mobile game. Instead you usually get a 3D artist to make a low poly model. The fact you do not have any communication with the team is a bit odd, but so be it. I'd reccomend either getting in touch with them or like I said before, putting the effort in and learning a 3D program, what you are wanting to do literally sounds like just click, drag, select and then press delete to delete some polys you wouldn't see anyways.
-Lars
with vcglib
vcglib may work for you, you can see the sample for simplify a ply 3D file. And it can applyed for many other 3D file format such as stl, obj... As vcglib is a C++ library, you can write a simple to use this library to simplify your stl model. This method work on the OS without X, such as ubuntu server. You can refer to my quesiton Failed to to simplify 3D models with vcglib, Assertion `0' failed on how to use vcglib to simplify a ply 3D file.
with meshlabserver
If you want do the auto simplyfication on OS with X, or windows, or Mac OS, it's much easy, you can refer to the meshlabserver, meshlab is also build on vcglib. You can run such ccommand, where the PLYmesher_script.mlx is the filter file, you can write this file or generate it with meshlab refer here.
meshlabserver -i ./option-0000.ply -o ./meshed.ply -m vc vn -s scripts/PLYmesher_script.mlx
I am working on a crowd controlled soundsystem for a music festival. Music would be controlled by individuals and the crowd as a whole, more or less 500 people.
While searching for crowd tracking techniques, I stumbled upon this one http://www.mikelrodriguez.com/crowd-analysis/#density; Matlab code and dataset are enclosed. Are you aware of similar techniques, maybe simpler, based eg on blob detection? Do you have an idea about how well this one would perform in a real-time scenario? Is there a known way to do this with eg OpenCV?
One of my former colleagues implemented something similar (controlling a few motors according to crowd movement) using optical flow. You can analyze the frames of video from a camera, calculate optical flow between frames, and use the values to estimate the crowd movement.
OpenCV has support to perform the above tasks, and comes with good code samples. A desktop should be able to do this in real-time (you might have to tweak with image resolution).
I am not exactly sure how to interface between a C++ program and a sound system. Pure Data (PD) is an alternative, but it might not have much support for motion analysis.
I am trying to determine which of these two to buy for my work. I have used SIMULINK but not LabVIEW. Is there anyone who has used both and would like to provide some details? My investigation criteria are the user friendliness, availability of libraries and template functions, real-time probing facility, COTS hardware interfacing opportunity, quality of code generation, design for testability (i.e. ease of generating unit/acceptance tests), etc. However, if anyone would like to educate me with more criteria, please do so by all means!
For anyone who does not know about SIMULINK and LabVIEW - These are both Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) intended for graphical dataflow modelling (and also code generation). These are multi-industrial tools and quite heavily used for engineering design and modelling.
IMPORTANT - I am quite interested to know if SIMULINK and LabVIEW offer real-time probing. For example, I have a model that I want to simulate. If there are variables associated to certain building blocks in that model, could I view them changing as the simulation continues? I know that it is certainly not possible with SIMULINK as it has a step-by-step debugger. I am not aware of anything similar in LabVIEW.
I really have not used LabVIEW and cannot obtain it temporarily as my work internet has got download restrictions and administrative privilege issues. This is the reason why I simply cannot use only NI website to draw conclusions. If there is any white paper available that addresses this issue, I would also love to know :)
UPDATE SINCE LAST POST
I have used MATLAB code generator and will not say that it is the best. However, I hear now that SIMULINK Embedded Coder is the best code generator and almost one of its own kind. Can anyone confirm whether or not this is good for safety critical system design i.e. generating code from safety-critical subsystem models. I know that the Mathworks is constantly trying to close the gap to achieve fully-flexible production-level C/C++ code generation.
I know that an ideal answer would be,"Depending on what you are trying to do, use a bit of both". And interestingly, I think I am heading to that direction. ATEOTD, it is a lot of money and need to be spent "nicely".
Thanks in advance.
I used labVIEW from 1995, and Simulink from 2000. Now I am involved in control system design, and simulation of robotic systems using labVIEW Real Time and automotive ECUs using MATALAB/Simulink/DSPACE .
LabVIEW is focus on measurement systems, and MATLAB/SIMULINK in dynamic simulation, so,
If you run complex simulations, and your work is create/debug complex simulation models of controllers or plants, use Simulink+RealTimeWorkShop+StateFlowChart. LabVIEW has no eficient code generators for dynamic simulation. RTW generates smaller and fastest code.
If your main work is developing systems with controllers and GUI for machines, or you want to deploy the controllers on field, use labVIEW.
If your main work is developing flexible HIL or SIL systems, with a good GUI, you can use VeriStand. Veristand can mix Simulink and LabVIEW code.
And if you have a big budget ( VERY BIG ) and you are working in automotive control prototypes, DSPACE hardware is a very good choice for fast development of automotive ECUS, or OPAL to develope electric power circuits. But only for prototype or HIL testing of controllers.
From the point of view of COTS hardware:
Mathworks don´t manufacture hardware -> Matlab/Simulink support hardware from several vendors.
National Instruments produce/sell hardware->LabVIEW Real Time is focused in support NationalInstruments hardware. There are no COTS full replacement.
I have absolutely no experience with Simulink, so I'll comment only on LV, although a quick read about Simulink on Wikipedia seems to indicate that it's focused mainly on simulation and modelling, which is certainly not the case with LabVIEW.
OK, so first of all, LV is NOT a DSL. While you wouldn't want to use it for any project, it's a general purpose programming language and you should take that into account. I know that NI has a simulation toolkit for LV, which might help you if that's what you're after, but I have absolutely no experience with it. The images I saw of it seemed to indicate that it adds a special kind of diagram to LV for simulation.
Second, LV is not restricted to any kind of hardware. It's a general purpose language, so you can write code which won't use any hardware at all, code which will use or run on NI's hardware or code which will use any hardware (be it through DLL calls, .NET assemblies, RS232, TCP, GPIB or any other option you can think of). There is quite a large collection of LV drivers for various devices and the quality of the driver usually depends on who wrote it.
Third, you can certainly probe in real time in LV. You write your code, just as you would in C or Java, and when you run it, you have several debugging options:
Single stepping. This isn't actually all that common, partially because LV is parallel.
Execution highlighting. This runs the code in slow motion, while showing all the values in the various wires.
Probes, which show you the last value that each wire had, where wires fill the same function that variables do in text based languages. This updates in real time and I assume is what you want.
Retain wire values, which allows you to probe a wire even after data passed through it. This is similar to what you get in text based IDEs with variables. In LV you don't usually have it because wire values are transient, so the value is not kept around unless you explicitly ask for it.
Of course, since you're talking about code, you could also simply write the code to display the values to the screen on a graph or a numeric indicator or to log them to a file, so there should be no need for actual probing. You could also add analysis code, etc.
Fourth, you could try downloading and running LV in a fully functional evaluation mode. If I remember correctly, NI currently gives you 7 days and then 45 days if you register on their site. If you can't do that on a work computer, you could try at home. If your problem is only with downloading, you could try contacting your local NI office and asking them to send you a DVD.
Note that I don't really know anything about modelling and simulation, so I have no idea what kind of code you would actually have to write in order to do what you want. I assume that if NI has a special module for it, then it's not something that you can completely cover in regular code (at least not if you want the original notation), but I would say that if you could write the code that does what you want in C, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to write it in LV (assuming, of course, that you know how to write code in LV).
A lot of the best answer would have to depend on your ultimate design requirements. Are you developing a product? If so, in what stage of development are you? Or are you doing research?
I recently did a comparison just as you are doing. I know LV, but was wanting to move towards a more hardware-scalable option, since NI HW is very expensive in volume. That is, my company was wanting to move towards a product. What LV and NI HW give you is flexibility. You can change code very quickly compared to C. On the other hand, LV does not run on nearly as many different HW platforms as C. So I wanted to find an inexpensive platform that would work well for real-time control and data acquisition, such that if we wanted to sell a product for, say, $30k, our controller wouldn't be costing $15k of that. We ended up with Diamond Systems Linux SBC's. Interestingly, Simulink ended up using the most expensive hardware! It did have a lot of flexibility, and could generate code, as well as model plants and controllers. But then, LV can do that as well.
As Yair wrote, LV has plenty of good debugging tools. One of the more interesting tools that is not so well known is the Suspend when Called option for a SubVI. This allows you to play with the inputs and outputs of a SubVI as much as you want while execution is paused.
MATLAB and Simulink are the defacto standard for control system design and simulation. Simulink controller models can be used for offline simulation in conjunction with plant models, all the way to realtime implementation on embedded targets. It is a general simulation framework with extensive built-in libraries as well as a la carte special purpose libraries, and can be extended through creation of custom blocks (S-function blocks) in C and other languages. It includes the ability to display values in graphs, numeric displays, gages, etc. while a nonrealtime simulation is taking place. Realtime target support from The Mathworks includes x86 (xPC Target) and several embedded targets (MPC555, etc.), and there is 3rd party support for other targets. The aforementioned dSPACE provides complete prototyping controllers including support for their quite powerful hardware. xPC Target includes support for a plethora of COTS PC data acquisition cards. Realtime target support includes GUI elements such as graphs, numeric displays gages, etc.
As I understand it (I have never really used it in anger), LabView only supports NI hardware, and is more hardware-oriented. Simulink supports hardware from multiple vendors, be it for data acquisition, or real-time implementation, but it may require a bit more work for the user to interface to his or her own hardware (less plug & play than LabView). On the other hand, Simulink provides tools to support the whole model-based design process, from modelling & simulation, control design, verification & validation, code generation, hardware-in-the-loop, etc...
Disclaimer: I used to work for MathWorks.
You guys may really be interested in Control Design adn Simulation Module for LabVIEW. It does a lot of simulations and in the future may be competitive to Simulink. I'm not a control engineer but I use it sometimes for simple testing and I'm glad that I don't have to learn Simulink from the beginning to do some work since I'm familiar with LabVIEW philosophy.
I need to find a way to model a physical place inside an iPhone application. For example, I want to be able to take images for a restaurant and then use some tools or programming API to model this resturant as a 3d place and make the user able to navigate and explore the place and rooms.
I have thought about HTML 5 inside a web view but I don't think the WebGL is compatible with iPhone Web View (Safari Engine).
Can you please recommend a method, API, Commercial Library or anything to help me achieve this task?
First, you need to be able to display 3D models for IPhone. One of the most popular 3D engine is Unity3D:
http://unity3d.com/
It is extremely easy to start playing with Unity3D. You even have a free license with limited features:
http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses
Then, you now need to reconstruct a 3D model from pictures. This is not a trivial problem so it is better if you know some computer vision. You can try to play with OpenCV:
http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/
Best regards.
Actually Nuke from the Foundry has a decent start at the future of creating computer models from images.
Basically it takes a high contrast point and tracks it through successive moments. Given hundreds and thousands of tracked points, the next step is to calculate the perspective change between points.
Say two points are a known pixel distance apart at time zero and a certain time period later they are a different distance apart. This change in difference could be a bad tracking point. But assuming that the two points are perfectly tracking, then the distance change could be caused by a camera motion laterally or rotationally. And in real space a point further away from you will have a different perspective then a closer point . This perspective change is a mathematical certainty.
Initially the tracking is typically used to refilm a piece of film to stabilize it. But the process the software uses to analyze the film can be saved , it is often called a point cloud. connection of many close points that track very closely usually are because the points are parts of a surface, so a model can be built.
But my friend, we are barbarians to the speed and software that can do that perfectly yet. Or all the CG Artists out there would not have anything to model in Maya except fantasy monsters and space ships that don't exist yet....
I would like to make a list of remarkable robot simulation environments including advantages and disadvantages of them. Some examples I know of are Webots and Player/Stage.
ROS will visualize your robot and any data you've recorded from it.
Packages to check out would rviz and nav_view
This made me remember the breve project.
breve is a free, open-source software package which makes it easy to build 3D simulations of multi-agent systems and artificial life.
There is also a wikipage listing Robotics simulators
Microsoft Robotics Studio/Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio 2008
Also read this article on MSDN Magazine
It all depends on what you want to do with the simulation.
I do legged robot simulation, I am coming from a perspective that is different than mobile robotics, but...
If you are interested in dynamics, then the one of the oldest but most difficult to use is sd/fast. The company that originally made it was acquired by a large cad outfit.
You might try heading to : http://www.sdfast.com/
It will cost you a bit of money, but I trust the accuracy of the simulation. There is no contact or collision model, so you have to roll you own. I have used it to simulate bipeds, swimming fish, etc.. There is also no visualization. So, it is for the hardcore programmer. However, it is well respected among us old folk.
OpenDynamics engine is used by people http://www.ode.org/ for "easier" simulation. It comes with an integrator and a primitive visualization package. There are python binding (Hurray for python!).
The build in friction model.. is ... well not very well documented. And did not make sense. Also, the simulations can suddenly "fly apart" for no apparent reason. The simulations may or may not be accurate.
Now, MapleSoft (in beautiful Waterloo Canada) has come out with maplesim. It will set you back a bit of money but here is what I like about it:
It goes beyond just robotics. You can virtually anything. I am sure you can simulate the suspension system on a car, gears, engines... I think it even interfaces with electrical circuit simulation. So, if you are building a high performance product, than MapleSim is a strong contender. Goto www.maplesoft.com and search for it.
They are pretty nice about giving you an eval copy for 30 days.
Of course, you can go home brew. You can solve the Lagrange-Euler equations of motion for most simple robots using a symbolic computation program like maple or mathematica.
EDIT: Have not be able to elegantly do certain derivatives in Maple. I have to resort to a hack.
However, be aware of speed issue.
Finally for more biologically motivated work, you might want to look at opensim (not to be confused with OpenSimulator).
EDIT: OpenSim shares a team member with SD/Fast.
There a lots of other specialized simulators. But, beware.
In sum here are the evaluation criteria for a simulator for robot oriented work:
(1) What kind of collision model do you have ? If it is a very stiff elastic collision, you may have problem in numerical stability during collisions
(2) Visualization- Can you add different terrains, etc..
(3) Handy graphical building tools so you don't have to code then see-what-you-get.
Handling complex system (say a full scale humanoid) is hard to think about in your head.
(4) What is the complexity of the underlying simulation algorithm. If it is O(N) then that is great. But it could be O(N^4) as would be the case for a straight Lagrange-Euler derivation... then your system just will not scale no matter how fast your machine.
(5) How accurate is it and do you care?
(6) Does it help you integrate sensors. For mobile robots you need to have a "robot-eyes view"
(7) If it does visualization, can it you do things like automatically follow the object as it is moving or do you have to chase it around?
Hope that helps!
It's not as impressive looking as Webots, but RobotBasic is free, easy to learn, and useful for prototyping simple robot movement algorithms. You can also program a BasicStamp from the IDE.
I've been programming against SimSpark. It's the open-source simulation engine behind the RoboCup 3D Simulated Soccer League.
It's extensible for different simulations. You can plug in your own sensors, actuators and models using C++, Ruby and/or RSG (Ruby Scene Graph) files.
ABB has a quite a solution called RobotStudio for simulating their huge industrial robots. I don't think it's free and I don't guess you'll get much fun out of it but it's quite impressive. Here's a page about it
I have been working with Carmen http://carmen.sourceforge.net/ and find it useful.
One of the disadvantages with Carmen is the documentation with all respect I think the webpage is a bit outdated and insufficient. So I like to hear from other people with experience in working with Carmen, or student reports/projects dealing with Carmen.
You can find a great list with simulation environments http://www.intorobotics.com/robotics-simulation-softwares-with-3d-modeling-and-programming-support/
MRDS is one of the best and it's free. Also LabView is good to be used in robotcs
National Instruments' LabView is a graphical programming environment for developing measurement, test, and control systems.
It could be used for 3D control simulation with SolidWorks.
MRDS is free and is one of the best simulation environment for robotics. Workspace also can be used, and please check this link if you want a complete list with robotics simulation software
Trik Studio has a nice and clear 2D model simulator and also visual and textual programming programming environments for them. They also soon will support 3D modeling tools based on Morse simulator. Also it is free and opensource and has multi-language interface.