I'm gonna reply to all your posts in one go, since you were carrying on
such a little conversation with yourself ;)

Warp wrote:
> Beware of possible floating point inaccuracies with such small numbers.
This is why your method is better (because the tangential vector is
longer :. less scope for FPI)

Warp wrote:
>   Of course the more mathematically oriented people would like an exact
> result instead of just an approximation... :)
Well, the only limit on the accuracy is that imposed by the system
itself (specifically FPI as you pointed out), so a more accurate
solution would probably have no further benefit anyway?

Warp wrote:
>   By the way, I think that this gives a better approximation:
Yeah, it does.

>   Suppose that we want to calculate the tangent of the spline at the
> time value T.
Which we do. ;P

>   Take a small value, which we will call Epsilon (could be for example
> 10e-5 or something similar).
> My constants.inc has EPSILON=1e-7, but of course it doesn't matter so long as it's
small.
> 
>   This given a better approximation because the resulting vector will be
> closer to the true tangent, and could even be exactly the tangent.
> 'Spline(T+Epsilon)-Spline(T)', however, can never be exactly the tangent.
Yeah, this method *is* better. I think the only reason I thought of the
other one was because the pure mathematical definition of the tangent
comes from that (with EPSILON -> 0), which makes the maths easier.
Of course, we can't use EPSILON=0 here, so obviously your method works
better.

-- 
signature{
  "Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
  site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}

Post a reply to this message

Disnel wrote:
> ...
> But I wanted to ask if there is some way to get exact tangent
> ...

But this method returns values about as close to the exact tangent as
you could probably get in a computer anyway, so FAPP it *is* exact.

-- 
signature{
  "Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
  site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}

Post a reply to this message

Grey Knight wrote:
>...
> so FAPP it *is* exact.

I guess you mean: For All Practical POV Purposes  ;)


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
> Grey Knight wrote:
> >...
> > so FAPP it *is* exact.
> I guess you mean: For All Practical POV Purposes  ;)
> Tor Olav

What other type of purpose is there? ;)

-- 
signature{
  "Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
  site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:00:51 +0000, Grey Knight <s16### [at] namtarqubacuk>
wrote:
> > I guess you mean: For All Practical POV Purposes  ;)
>
> What other type of purpose is there? ;)

Of course Scientifical/Theoretical POV Purposes ;)

ABX

Post a reply to this message

I tried this with my bezier curve include file. Of course you just need
to find the derivitave of the spline function, it should give you the
tangent direction. Of course this is a lot harder than it sounds. I've
wasted half a ream calculating the derivitave of a bezier function.

Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
http://www.spiritone.com/~english

Disnel wrote:
> 
> Thank to all, you are right and I think, that it will be sufficient.
> 
> But I wanted to ask if there is some way to get exact tangent (another
> than reimplementing POV spline in POV language, of course ;-) The answer
> is probably not.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Disnel

Post a reply to this message

POV is powerful enough for getting all the piecewise polynomial coefficients
from declared spline. For cubic spline we can calculate four points on every
time interval, get all four coefficients from this 4x4 linear system and
then get exact tangent function for every time interval. These coefficients
can be used outside POV.

Of course, this will be approximation too, because of limited accuracy. The
best way is just to find out these figures directly from original set of
points, but it seems that in this case we need to solve linear systems of
higher order, than 4(still possible with SDL, however).







"Disnel" <dis### [at] itamcascz> wrote in message
news:3C7### [at] itamcascz...
>
> Thank to all, you are right and I think, that it will be sufficient.
>
> But I wanted to ask if there is some way to get exact tangent (another
> than reimplementing POV spline in POV language, of course ;-) The answer
> is probably not.

Post a reply to this message

Gleb wrote:
>...
> Of course, this will be approximation too, because of limited accuracy. The
> best way is just to find out these figures directly from original set of
> points, but it seems that in this case we need to solve linear systems of
> higher order, than 4(still possible with SDL, however).
>...

I have some (slow) POV macros that will solve
linear systems with N equations and N unknowns.


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message

"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3C7976C9.AD9DA3D8@hotmail.com...
>
> I have some (slow) POV macros that will solve
> linear systems with N equations and N unknowns.
>

In this particular case speed is not so important,
because all calculations should be done only once for given spline.

Gleb

Post a reply to this message

Gleb wrote:
> 
> "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:3C7976C9.AD9DA3D8@hotmail.com...
> >
> > I have some (slow) POV macros that will solve
> > linear systems with N equations and N unknowns.
> >
> 
> In this particular case speed is not so important,
> because all calculations should be done only once for given spline.

Ok then -

If there's anyone that is working out these
tangent functions, just tell me if you want
me to post some of my matrix macros.


Tor Olav

Post a reply to this message