问题
I'm working on a simple rotate routine which normalizes an objects rotation between 0 and 360 degrees. My C# code seems to be working but I'm not entirely happy with it. Can anyone improve on the code below making it a bit more robust?
public void Rotate(int degrees)
{
this.orientation += degrees;
if (this.orientation < 0)
{
while (this.orientation < 0)
{
this.orientation += 360;
}
}
else if (this.orientation >= 360)
{
while (this.orientation >= 360)
{
this.orientation -= 360;
}
}
}
回答1:
Use modulo arithmetic:
this.orientation += degrees;
this.orientation = this.orientation % 360;
if (this.orientation < 0)
{
this.orientation += 360;
}
回答2:
This is one that normalizes to any range. Useful for normalizing between [-180,180], [0,180] or [0,360].
( it's in C++ though )
//Normalizes any number to an arbitrary range //by assuming the range wraps around when going below min or above max double normalise( const double value, const double start, const double end ) { const double width = end - start ; // const double offsetValue = value - start ; // value relative to 0 return ( offsetValue - ( floor( offsetValue / width ) * width ) ) + start ; // + start to reset back to start of original range }
For ints
//Normalizes any number to an arbitrary range //by assuming the range wraps around when going below min or above max int normalise( const int value, const int start, const int end ) { const int width = end - start ; // const int offsetValue = value - start ; // value relative to 0 return ( offsetValue - ( ( offsetValue / width ) * width ) ) + start ; // + start to reset back to start of original range }
So basically the same but without the floor. The version I personally use is a generic one that works for all numeric types and it also uses a redefined floor that does nothing in case of integral types.
回答3:
This can be simplified to the following.
public void Rotate (int degrees) {
this.orientation = (this.orientation + degrees) % 360;
if (this.orientation < 0) this.orientation += 360;
}
C# follows the same rules as C and C++ and i % 360
will give you a value between -359
and 359
for any integer, then the second line is to ensure it's in the range 0 through 359 inclusive.
If you wanted to be shifty, you could get it down to one line:
this.orientation = (this.orientation + (degrees % 360) + 360) % 360;
which would keep it positive under all conditions but that's a nasty hack for saving one line of code, so I wouldn't do it, but I will explain it.
From degrees % 360
you will get a number between -359
and 359
. Adding 360
will modify the range to between 1
and 719
. If orientation
is already positive, adding this will guarantee it still is, and the final % 360
will bring it back to the range 0
through 359
.
At a bare minimum, you could simplify your code since the if
s and while
s can be combined. For example, the result of the conditions in these two lines:
if (this.orientation < 0)
while (this.orientation < 0)
is always the same, hence you don't need the surrounding if
.
So, to that end, you could do:
public void Rotate (int degrees) {
this.orientation += degrees;
while (this.orientation < 0) this.orientation += 360;
while (this.orientation > 359) this.orientation -= 360;
}
but I'd still go for the modulus version since it avoids loops. This will be important when a user enters 360,000,000,000 for the rotation (and they will do this, believe me) and then find they have to take an early lunch while your code grinds away :-)
回答4:
formula for re-orienting circular values i.e to keep angle between 0 and 359 is:
angle + Math.ceil( -angle / 360 ) * 360
generalized formula for shifting angle orientation can be:
angle + Math.ceil( (-angle+shift) / 360 ) * 360
in which value of shift represent circular shift for e.g I want values in -179 to 180 then it can be represented as: angle + Math.ceil( (-angle-179) / 360 ) * 360
回答5:
I sort of quickly mocked this up in AS3, but should work (you may need +=
on the angle)
private Number clampAngle(Number angle)
{
return (angle % 360) + (angle < 0 ? 360 : 0);
}
回答6:
I prefer to avoid loops, conditionals, arbitrary offsets (3600), and Math.____()
calls:
var degrees = -123;
degrees = (degrees % 360 + 360) % 360;
// degrees: 237
回答7:
Add any multiple of 360 degrees between which your possible input values could be (to take it above zero), and just take the remaining with %, like this
angle = 382;
normalized_angle = (angle+3600) %360;
//result = 22
The case above can take input angles down to -3600. You can add any number (multiple of 360) crazily high that would make the input value positive first.
Usually during an animation, your previous frame/step value would probably be already normalized by the previous step, so you'll be good to go by just adding 360:
normalized_angle = (angle+360) %360;
回答8:
Function that comes handy when normalizing angles (degrees) into interval [0, 360> :
float normalize_angle(float angle)
{
float k = angle;
while(k < 0.0)
k += 360.0;
while(k >= 360.0)
k -= 360.0;
return k;
}
回答9:
Just for anybody else who stumbles upon these magic solutions. I have tested several of these for true 0-360 values out. Using a gyro that can give values in the +/- many thousands range
enzuguri's solution achieves this !!
Saad Ahmed and QBziZ's solution yield -10 for an input of -10; not the 350 I would expect. Hope this is helpful JC
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1628386/normalise-orientation-between-0-and-360