text: Convert Vector to Euler (Cardan) Angles
  #1 Members - Reputation: 100
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 12:29 AM
  #2 Crossbones+ - Reputation: 7126
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 12:36 AM
  EDIT: Don't know how good this is, but look e.g. at
  #3 Members - Reputation: 139
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 01:43 AM
  just calculate the the angle between the two by using Cos^-1(|a|.|b|/|a||b|) ?.
  #4 Crossbones+ - Reputation: 19654
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 03:56 AM
  #include <iostream>
  #include <cmath>
  using namespace std;
  void rotate(double &x, double &y, double angle){
  double c=cos(angle),s=sin(angle);
  double x0 = x;
  x = x*c - s*y;
  y = x0*s + x0*y;
  }
  int main(void){
  double target_x=1,target_y=2,target_z=3;
  double x=1,y=0,z=0;
  rotate(y,z,4); // Replace 4 by whatever you want. This is your free parameter
  rotate(x,z,atan2(target_z,sqrt(target_x*target_x+target_y*target_y)));
  rotate(x,y,atan2(target_y,target_x));
  std::cout << x << ',' << y << ',' << z << std::endl;
  }
  #5 Members - Reputation: 769
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 07:13 AM
  double yaw = Math.Atan2(ds.X, ds.Y);
  double pitch = Math.Atan2(ds.Z, Math.Sqrt((ds.X * ds.X) + (ds.Y * ds.Y)));
  An axis vector can be rotated into the direction by first rotating along the world Y axis by the pitch, then by the Z by the yaw. But you probably know that already.
  I don't think it's possible to have angles about each (world) axis that don't depend on the order of rotations, because changing the order of rotations with the same angles would give you a different direction. I don't know what a Cardan angle is though.
  #6 Members - Reputation: 2078
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 07:29 AM
  - As Bob said above, the third angle is redundant when aligning one vector with another.
  - You could use trig to compute the first two angles about whichever axes you're interested in, and leave the third as zero...
  - Or you could construct the axis-angle matrix that rotates the first vector to the second and extract the angles from it.
  I take it from your post that although you need (non-repeating) Euler angles as the final form, you can use other intermediate representations. If you wish to go through an axis-angle matrix representation, Shoemake's article/code is really the way to go. If you tried this and it didn't work, then there may be more to the problem, either that or we're misunderstanding it somehow. (One potential pitfall is using axis-angle and Euler-extraction functions with non-matching basis vector orientations, so watch out for this. FYI Shoemake's examples use column vectors.)
  #7 Members - Reputation: 100
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:21 PM
  Quote:
  Yes, but this is the direct (dihedral) angle (non-orthogonal). Good for axis-angle representations along with a cross product calculation, but how does that get me orthogonal Euler angle rotations?
  Robert
  [Edited by - Kuroyume0161 on June 23, 2006 1:21:27 AM]
  #8 Members - Reputation: 100
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:44 PM
  Quote:
  I've found that code and it sort of works, but because of the handedness of the system, modifications were necessary to get proper angles. But even this is not working in all cases. The problem is that the rotations are ordered, the first rotation is always a 'twist' (the roll) - but it is not always about the z-azis:
  XYZ, XZY: roll = X
  YXZ, YZX: roll = Y
  ZXY, ZYX: roll = Z
  Now, I may need to adjust for this. Haven't attempted it yet. These angles need to be ordered as they are being applied to geometry deformation that weights each axis rotation (e.g.):
  Vector point *= (parentGlobal * trans * MatrixRotZ(wz*zrot) * MatrixRotY(wy*yrot) * MatrixRotX(wx*xrot) * scale);
  where wx,wy,wz are weights between 0.0 and 1.0.
  Arbitrary rolls (because X or Y is actually a twist) may cause improper deformations. Again, I haven't had a chance to test all of these scenarios.
  ***
  Cardan angles are the proper term for this subset of Euler angles - sometimes Euler angles are strictly applied to these rotation orders: XYX, XZX, YXY, YZY, ZXZ, ZYZ. Cardan angles do not repeat (check out Shoemake's "Euler Angle Conversion") as noted. Strictly speaking, they are not 'Euler angles', they are formally known as Cardan angles (sometimes Cardan-Bryant angles). But the term 'Euler angles' has become ubiquitous for all twelve of these rotation orders.
  Here is the first test code:
  //, no more processing required
  if (VectorEqual(eVec, rVec, EPSILONL)) return;
  // - Calculate angular offset between eVec/rVec Vectors in Rotation Order
  Real r;
  Vector eAngle;
  Vector rAngle;
  // -- Calculate Euler angles of Conformer
  r = Sqrt(rVec.x*rVec.x + rVec.z*rVec.z);
  rAngle.y = (r < EPSILONS) ? 0.0f : Support::Angle(rVec.z, rVec.x); // yaw
  rAngle.x = -Support::Angle(rVec.y, r); // pitch
  rAngle.z = 0.0f; // roll
  // -- Concatenate Rotation-order specific matrix
  Matrix mat;
  LONG ro = bc->GetLong(IPP_RORDER);
  if (ro == ROTORDER_XYZ) mat = MatrixMove(Vector(0.0)) * MatrixRotZ(rAngle.z) * MatrixRotY(rAngle.y) * MatrixRotX(rAngle.x) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  else if (ro == ROTORDER_XZY) mat = MatrixMove(Vector(0.0)) * MatrixRotY(rAngle.y) * MatrixRotZ(rAngle.z) * MatrixRotX(rAngle.x) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  else if (ro == ROTORDER_YXZ) mat = MatrixMove(Vector(0.0)) * MatrixRotZ(rAngle.z) * MatrixRotX(rAngle.x) * MatrixRotY(rAngle.y) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  else if (ro == ROTORDER_YZX) mat = MatrixMove(Vector(0.0)) * MatrixRotX(rAngle.x) * MatrixRotZ(rAngle.z) * MatrixRotY(rAngle.y) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  else if (ro == ROTORDER_ZXY) mat = MatrixMove(Vector(0.0)) * MatrixRotY(rAngle.y) * MatrixRotX(rAngle.x) * MatrixRotZ(rAngle.z) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  else if (ro == ROTORDER_ZYX) mat = MatrixMove(Vector(0.0)) *);
  eAngle.y = (r < EPSILONS) ? 0.0f : Support::Angle(eVec.z, eVec.x); // yaw
  eAngle.x = -Support::Angle(eVec.y, r); // pitch
  eAngle.z = 0.0f; // roll
  // These are the rotation angles from Conformee to Conformer Endpoint
  Vector rotVec = Vector(-eAngle.x, -eAngle.y, 0.0);
  Note the switch of Z and X in calculating the Yaw (rAngle.y and eAngle.y). This may be a result of the system handedness being left (I don't know - noone discusses important details like this). Note also that the matrix concatenation is applied to 'eVec' (the vector that needs to match the other vector 'rVec'). This makes the Euler angles absolute with respect to rVec pointing along the (0d,0d,0d) rotation axis and so that the anti-rotation (negative eAngle.x and eAngle.y) would point eVec along it as well (as best that I can determine).
  ETA: It is possible that I don't want to concatenate in rotation order, but use strict XYZ. Or it could be that I need to consider rotation order in the 'direction vector to Euler angles' as well. These are unknowns since noone ever talks about it. Quaternions are great, but sometimes you need to do things that cannot be done with them. These problems have existed for centuries, yet finding maths, algorithms, and source for something like this is impossible. Someone could really make a killing just writing a book exclusively on 3D rotations - it is the bane of all 3D and there are enough problems to cover an encyclopedia. :)
  Robert
  [Edited by - Kuroyume0161 on June 23, 2006 1:44:56 AM]
  #9 Members - Reputation: 100
  Posted 22 June 2006 - 07:00 PM
  Quote:
  Yes.
  Shoemake's code seems to return some incorrect results in my case - rotation angles are usually correct, but in the wrong 'slot' (e.g.: z instead of x). Part of this could well be the translation from right-left and column:major-row:major - I'm working in a left-handled coordinate system (he uses right). My matrices are row major (he uses column major). Don't know how the SDK applies vectors (column or row). My guess is as row vectors. I'd have to look at their vector * matrix operator code and figure it out. The SDK that I'm using doesn't use Matrix [4][4] or [3][3]. Instead it uses this:
  Matrix
  {
  Vector off; // translation
  Vector v1; // x-axis basis
  Vector v2; // y-axis basis
  Vector v3; // z-axis basis
  }
  The homogenous basis (0,0,0,1) is 'understood' and not present.
  I could go the more strenuous route and keep the code as is and convert the matrix to column-major with a transpose and reflect.
  #10 Members - Reputation: 100
  Posted 23 June 2006 - 01:15 PM
  Not sure about that, but the code above (and modified just to multiply in RotX*RotY*RotZ order) doesn't always work as expected. I'm getting nearly +/-90d rolls when the vectors shouldn't be rolling. It makes for some rather nasty bend deformations.
  If it weren't for these darned deformation rotations, I'd settle for axis-angle to matrix and be done with it. Alas, I need the Euler/Cardan rotations, and they need to be proper (however one defines that in this situation). To relieve some of the confusion as to why I don't seem to have full control here - this is taking the data from one 3D application and using it in another through a plugin. So, no, I don't have full control. Nor do I have full knowledge of how the source application works internally - I have almost none (and they are not using much standard anything it seems).
  Thanks,
  Robert
  #11 Members - Reputation: 100
  Posted 23 June 2006 - 11:58 PM
  Taking the vector rVec and determining its main axis direction (if two values are the same, any of the two main axes will probably work similarly) tells me which axis to consider as the 'Roll' axis. Both vectors, rVec and eVec, are rotated so that their main axes (X or Y) are now the Z-axis. With that, I can calculate using the standard DirectionVector-to-EulerAngles maths. Then I just assign the Euler vector angles to the appropriate x,y,z. Now the rotations are 'minimal' and the 'Roll' axis as determined for the vector is always 0.0.
  // or either is zero vector (no direction), no more processing required
  if (VectorEqual(eVec, rVec, EPSILONL)) return;
  if (VectorEqual(eVec, zVec, EPSILONL)) return;
  if (VectorEqual(rVec, zVec, EPSILONL)) return;
  // - Determine main direction axis for vector
  UCHAR axis;
  Vector ar = Vector(Abs(rVec.x), Abs(rVec.y), Abs(rVec.z));
  // -- X
  if ((ar.x > ar.y) && (ar.x > ar.z))
  {
  Matrix align = MatrixRotX(RAD_90) * MatrixRotZ(RAD_90) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  // new y is old x, new z is old y, new x is old z
  rVec *= align;
  eVec *= align;
  axis = 0;
  }
  // -- Y
  else if (ar.y > ar.z)
  {
  // new x is old y, new z is old x, new y is old z
  Matrix align = MatrixRotY(-RAD_90) * MatrixRotZ(-RAD_90) * MatrixScale(Vector(1.0));
  rVec *= align;
  eVec *= align;
  axis = 1;
  }
  // -- Z
  else axis = 2;
  // - Calculate angular offset between eVec/rVec Vectors in Rotation Order
  // -- Calculate Euler angles of Conformer
  Real r;
  Vector eAngle;
  Vector rAngle;
  r = Sqrt(rVec.x*rVec.x + rVec.z*rVec.z);
  rAngle.z = 0.0f; // roll
  rAngle.y = (r < EPSILONS) ? 0.0f : Support::Angle(rVec.z, rVec.x); // yaw
  rAngle.x = -Support::Angle(rVec.y, r); // pitch
  // -- Concatenate Rotation-order specific matrix
  Matrix mat = MatrixMove(zVec) *);
  // These are the rotation angles from Conformee to Conformer Endpoint
  eAngle.z = 0.0f; // roll
  eAngle.y = (r < EPSILONS) ? 0.0f : -Support::Angle(eVec.z, eVec.x); // yaw
  eAngle.x = Support::Angle(eVec.y, r); // pitch
  // Reorder rotations to avoid roll rotations
  Vector rotVec;
  if (axis == 0)
  {
  rotVec.x = eAngle.z;
  rotVec.y = eAngle.x;
  rotVec.z = eAngle.y;
  }
  else if (axis == 1)
  {
  rotVec.x = eAngle.y;
  rotVec.y = eAngle.z;
  rotVec.z = eAngle.x;
  }
  else
  {
  rotVec.x = eAngle.x;
  rotVec.y = eAngle.y;
  rotVec.z = eAngle.z;
  }
  Tests so far have all been positive. There is a likelyhood of finding an exception to this - a vector with equal non-zero values like v(10,10,10) would prove an interesting situation - but it should default to standard Z-axis Roll for better or worse.
  Thanks,
  Robert
  #12 Crossbones+ - Reputation: 19654
  Posted 26 June 2006 - 02:55 AM