Related
I need a 'good' way to initialize the pseudo-random number generator in C++. I've found an article that states:
In order to generate random-like
numbers, srand is usually initialized
to some distinctive value, like those
related with the execution time. For
example, the value returned by the
function time (declared in header
ctime) is different each second, which
is distinctive enough for most
randoming needs.
Unixtime isn't distinctive enough for my application. What's a better way to initialize this? Bonus points if it's portable, but the code will primarily be running on Linux hosts.
I was thinking of doing some pid/unixtime math to get an int, or possibly reading data from /dev/urandom.
Thanks!
EDIT
Yes, I am actually starting my application multiple times a second and I've run into collisions.
This is what I've used for small command line programs that can be run frequently (multiple times a second):
unsigned long seed = mix(clock(), time(NULL), getpid());
Where mix is:
// Robert Jenkins' 96 bit Mix Function
unsigned long mix(unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long c)
{
a=a-b; a=a-c; a=a^(c >> 13);
b=b-c; b=b-a; b=b^(a << 8);
c=c-a; c=c-b; c=c^(b >> 13);
a=a-b; a=a-c; a=a^(c >> 12);
b=b-c; b=b-a; b=b^(a << 16);
c=c-a; c=c-b; c=c^(b >> 5);
a=a-b; a=a-c; a=a^(c >> 3);
b=b-c; b=b-a; b=b^(a << 10);
c=c-a; c=c-b; c=c^(b >> 15);
return c;
}
The best answer is to use <random>. If you are using a pre C++11 version, you can look at the Boost random number stuff.
But if we are talking about rand() and srand()
The best simplest way is just to use time():
int main()
{
srand(time(nullptr));
...
}
Be sure to do this at the beginning of your program, and not every time you call rand()!
Side Note:
NOTE: There is a discussion in the comments below about this being insecure (which is true, but ultimately not relevant (read on)). So an alternative is to seed from the random device /dev/random (or some other secure real(er) random number generator). BUT: Don't let this lull you into a false sense of security. This is rand() we are using. Even if you seed it with a brilliantly generated seed it is still predictable (if you have any value you can predict the full sequence of next values). This is only useful for generating "pseudo" random values.
If you want "secure" you should probably be using <random> (Though I would do some more reading on a security informed site). See the answer below as a starting point: https://stackoverflow.com/a/29190957/14065 for a better answer.
Secondary note: Using the random device actually solves the issues with starting multiple copies per second better than my original suggestion below (just not the security issue).
Back to the original story:
Every time you start up, time() will return a unique value (unless you start the application multiple times a second). In 32 bit systems, it will only repeat every 60 years or so.
I know you don't think time is unique enough but I find that hard to believe. But I have been known to be wrong.
If you are starting a lot of copies of your application simultaneously you could use a timer with a finer resolution. But then you run the risk of a shorter time period before the value repeats.
OK, so if you really think you are starting multiple applications a second.
Then use a finer grain on the timer.
int main()
{
struct timeval time;
gettimeofday(&time,NULL);
// microsecond has 1 000 000
// Assuming you did not need quite that accuracy
// Also do not assume the system clock has that accuracy.
srand((time.tv_sec * 1000) + (time.tv_usec / 1000));
// The trouble here is that the seed will repeat every
// 24 days or so.
// If you use 100 (rather than 1000) the seed repeats every 248 days.
// Do not make the MISTAKE of using just the tv_usec
// This will mean your seed repeats every second.
}
if you need a better random number generator, don't use the libc rand. Instead just use something like /dev/random or /dev/urandom directly (read in an int directly from it or something like that).
The only real benefit of the libc rand is that given a seed, it is predictable which helps with debugging.
On windows:
srand(GetTickCount());
provides a better seed than time() since its in milliseconds.
C++11 random_device
If you need reasonable quality then you should not be using rand() in the first place; you should use the <random> library. It provides lots of great functionality like a variety of engines for different quality/size/performance trade-offs, re-entrancy, and pre-defined distributions so you don't end up getting them wrong. It may even provide easy access to non-deterministic random data, (e.g., /dev/random), depending on your implementation.
#include <random>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::random_device r;
std::seed_seq seed{r(), r(), r(), r(), r(), r(), r(), r()};
std::mt19937 eng(seed);
std::uniform_int_distribution<> dist{1,100};
for (int i=0; i<50; ++i)
std::cout << dist(eng) << '\n';
}
eng is a source of randomness, here a built-in implementation of mersenne twister. We seed it using random_device, which in any decent implementation will be a non-determanistic RNG, and seed_seq to combine more than 32-bits of random data. For example in libc++ random_device accesses /dev/urandom by default (though you can give it another file to access instead).
Next we create a distribution such that, given a source of randomness, repeated calls to the distribution will produce a uniform distribution of ints from 1 to 100. Then we proceed to using the distribution repeatedly and printing the results.
Best way is to use another pseudorandom number generator.
Mersenne twister (and Wichmann-Hill) is my recommendation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister
i suggest you see unix_random.c file in mozilla code. ( guess it is mozilla/security/freebl/ ...) it should be in freebl library.
there it uses system call info ( like pwd, netstat ....) to generate noise for the random number;it is written to support most of the platforms (which can gain me bonus point :D ).
The real question you must ask yourself is what randomness quality you need.
libc random is a LCG
The quality of randomness will be low whatever input you provide srand with.
If you simply need to make sure that different instances will have different initializations, you can mix process id (getpid), thread id and a timer. Mix the results with xor. Entropy should be sufficient for most applications.
Example :
struct timeb tp;
ftime(&tp);
srand(static_cast<unsigned int>(getpid()) ^
static_cast<unsigned int>(pthread_self()) ^
static_cast<unsigned int >(tp.millitm));
For better random quality, use /dev/urandom. You can make the above code portable in using boost::thread and boost::date_time.
The c++11 version of the top voted post by Jonathan Wright:
#include <ctime>
#include <random>
#include <thread>
...
const auto time_seed = static_cast<size_t>(std::time(0));
const auto clock_seed = static_cast<size_t>(std::clock());
const size_t pid_seed =
std::hash<std::thread::id>()(std::this_thread::get_id());
std::seed_seq seed_value { time_seed, clock_seed, pid_seed };
...
// E.g seeding an engine with the above seed.
std::mt19937 gen;
gen.seed(seed_value);
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
main()
{
struct timeval tv;
gettimeofday(&tv,NULL);
printf("%d\n", tv.tv_usec);
return 0;
}
tv.tv_usec is in microseconds. This should be acceptable seed.
As long as your program is only running on Linux (and your program is an ELF executable), you are guaranteed that the kernel provides your process with a unique random seed in the ELF aux vector. The kernel gives you 16 random bytes, different for each process, which you can get with getauxval(AT_RANDOM). To use these for srand, use just an int of them, as such:
#include <sys/auxv.h>
void initrand(void)
{
unsigned int *seed;
seed = (unsigned int *)getauxval(AT_RANDOM);
srand(*seed);
}
It may be possible that this also translates to other ELF-based systems. I'm not sure what aux values are implemented on systems other than Linux.
Suppose you have a function with a signature like:
int foo(char *p);
An excellent source of entropy for a random seed is a hash of the following:
Full result of clock_gettime (seconds and nanoseconds) without throwing away the low bits - they're the most valuable.
The value of p, cast to uintptr_t.
The address of p, cast to uintptr_t.
At least the third, and possibly also the second, derive entropy from the system's ASLR, if available (the initial stack address, and thus current stack address, is somewhat random).
I would also avoid using rand/srand entirely, both for the sake of not touching global state, and so you can have more control over the PRNG that's used. But the above procedure is a good (and fairly portable) way to get some decent entropy without a lot of work, regardless of what PRNG you use.
For those using Visual Studio here's yet another way:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <time.h>
#include <windows.h>
const __int64 DELTA_EPOCH_IN_MICROSECS= 11644473600000000;
struct timezone2
{
__int32 tz_minuteswest; /* minutes W of Greenwich */
bool tz_dsttime; /* type of dst correction */
};
struct timeval2 {
__int32 tv_sec; /* seconds */
__int32 tv_usec; /* microseconds */
};
int gettimeofday(struct timeval2 *tv/*in*/, struct timezone2 *tz/*in*/)
{
FILETIME ft;
__int64 tmpres = 0;
TIME_ZONE_INFORMATION tz_winapi;
int rez = 0;
ZeroMemory(&ft, sizeof(ft));
ZeroMemory(&tz_winapi, sizeof(tz_winapi));
GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(&ft);
tmpres = ft.dwHighDateTime;
tmpres <<= 32;
tmpres |= ft.dwLowDateTime;
/*converting file time to unix epoch*/
tmpres /= 10; /*convert into microseconds*/
tmpres -= DELTA_EPOCH_IN_MICROSECS;
tv->tv_sec = (__int32)(tmpres * 0.000001);
tv->tv_usec = (tmpres % 1000000);
//_tzset(),don't work properly, so we use GetTimeZoneInformation
rez = GetTimeZoneInformation(&tz_winapi);
tz->tz_dsttime = (rez == 2) ? true : false;
tz->tz_minuteswest = tz_winapi.Bias + ((rez == 2) ? tz_winapi.DaylightBias : 0);
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
struct timeval2 tv;
struct timezone2 tz;
ZeroMemory(&tv, sizeof(tv));
ZeroMemory(&tz, sizeof(tz));
gettimeofday(&tv, &tz);
unsigned long seed = tv.tv_sec ^ (tv.tv_usec << 12);
srand(seed);
}
Maybe a bit overkill but works well for quick intervals. gettimeofday function found here.
Edit: upon further investigation rand_s might be a good alternative for Visual Studio, it's not just a safe rand(), it's totally different and doesn't use the seed from srand. I had presumed it was almost identical to rand just "safer".
To use rand_s just don't forget to #define _CRT_RAND_S before stdlib.h is included.
Assuming that the randomness of srand() + rand() is enough for your purposes, the trick is in selecting the best seed for srand. time(NULL) is a good starting point, but you'll run into problems if you start more than one instance of the program within the same second. Adding the pid (process id) is an improvement as different instances will get different pids. I would multiply the pid by a factor to spread them more.
But let's say you are using this for some embedded device and you have several in the same network. If they are all powered at once and you are launching the several instances of your program automatically at boot time, they may still get the same time and pid and all the devices will generate the same sequence of "random" numbers. In that case, you may want to add some unique identifier of each device (like the CPU serial number).
The proposed initialization would then be:
srand(time(NULL) + 1000 * getpid() + (uint) getCpuSerialNumber());
In a Linux machine (at least in the Raspberry Pi where I tested this), you can implement the following function to get the CPU Serial Number:
// Gets the CPU Serial Number as a 64 bit unsigned int. Returns 0 if not found.
uint64_t getCpuSerialNumber() {
FILE *f = fopen("/proc/cpuinfo", "r");
if (!f) {
return 0;
}
char line[256];
uint64_t serial = 0;
while (fgets(line, 256, f)) {
if (strncmp(line, "Serial", 6) == 0) {
serial = strtoull(strchr(line, ':') + 2, NULL, 16);
}
}
fclose(f);
return serial;
}
Include the header at the top of your program, and write:
srand(time(NULL));
In your program before you declare your random number. Here is an example of a program that prints a random number between one and ten:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
//Initialize srand
srand(time(NULL));
//Create random number
int n = rand() % 10 + 1;
//Print the number
cout << n << endl; //End the line
//The main function is an int, so it must return a value
return 0;
}
Hey guys I have created a program in C that tests all numbers between 1 and 10000 to check if they are perfect using a function that determines whether a number is perfect. Once it finds these it prints them to the user, they are 6, 28, 496 and 8128. After this the program then prints out all the factors of each perfect number to the user. This is all fine. Here is my problem.
The final part of my task asks me to:
"Use a "twirly" to indicate that your program is happily working away. A "twirly" is the following characters printed over the top of each other in the following order: '|' '/' '-' '\'. This has the effect of producing a spinning wheel - ie a "twirly". Hint: to do this you can use \r (instead of \n) in printf to give a carriage return only (instead of a carriage return linefeed). (Note: this may not work on some systems - you do not have to do it this way.)"
I have no idea what a twirly is or how to implement one. My tutor said it has something to do with the sleep and delay functions which I also don't know how to use. Can anyone help me with this last stage, it sucks that all my coding is complete but I can't get this "twirly" thing to work.
if you want to simultaneously perform the task of
Testing the numbers and
Display the twirly on screen
while the process goes on then you better look into using threads. using POSIX threads you can initiate the task on a thread and the other thread will display the twirly to the user on terminal.
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<pthread.h>
int Test();
void Display();
int main(){
// create threads each for both tasks test and Display
//call threads
//wait for Test thread to finish
//terminate display thread after Test thread completes
//exit code
}
Refer chapter 12 for threads
beginning linux programming ebook
Given the program upon which the user is "waiting", I believe the problem as stated and the solutions using sleep() or threads are misguided.
To produce all the perfect numbers below 10,000 using C on a modern personal computer takes about 1/10 of a second. So any device to show the computer is "happily working away" would either never be seen or would significanly intefere with the time it takes to get the job done.
But let's make a working twirly for perfect number search anyway. I've left off printing the factors to keep this simple. Since 10,000 is too low to see the twirly in action, I've upped the limit to 100,000:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
const char *twirly = "|/-\\";
for (unsigned x = 1; x <= 100000; x++)
{
unsigned sum = 0;
for (unsigned i = 1; i <= x / 2; i++)
{
if (x % i == 0)
{
sum += i;
}
}
if (sum == x)
{
printf("%d\n", x);
}
printf("%c\r", twirly[x / 2500 % strlen(twirly)]);
}
return 0;
}
No need for sleep() or threads, just key it into the complexity of the problem itself and have it update at reasonable intervals.
Now here's the catch, although the above works, the user will never see a fifth perfect number pop out with a 100,000 limit and even with a 100,000,000 limit, which should produce one more, they'll likely give up as this is a bad (slow) algorithm for finding them. But they'll have a twirly to watch.
i as integer
loop i: 1 to 10000
loop j: 1 to i/2
sum as integer
set sum = 0
if i%j == 0
sum+=j
return sum==i
if i%100 == 0
str as character pointer
set *str = "|/-\\"
set length = 4
print str[p] using "%c\r" as format specifier
Increment p and assign its modulo by len to p
So, I'm working at inventing my own tile map creation and I got a problem on size. The maximum size (which I did not set) is <700x700, anything higher makes it crash. First, I thought it's something I got wrong when making the "presentation version" which outputs the result on screen -> ScreenShot, but now I just finished making it more compact and tried using 800x800 and it still has the 7 limit, but I have no idea why. Since the code isn't that big I will show it here. If you have some tips I don't mind taking them.
#include <iostream>
#include <string.h>
#include <fstream>
#include <ctime>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <SFML/Graphics.hpp>
#include <SFML/Audio.hpp>
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0501
#include <windows.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
sf::Vector2i Size;
int Points,rands,PointsCheck=1,x,y,RandX,RandY,CurrentNumber=1;
srand(time(0));
bool Done=false,Expanded,Border;
ofstream Out("txt.txt");
/***/
cout << "Size X-Y = "; cin >> Size.x >> Size.y;cout << endl;
cout << "MAX Points - " << (Size.x*Size.y)/10 << endl;
cout << "Number of POINTS = ";cin >> Points ;cout << endl;
/***/
int PixelMap[Size.x+1][Size.y+1];
/***/
for (x=1;x<=Size.x;x++) for (y=1;y<=Size.y;y++) PixelMap[x][y]=0;
/***/
while(PointsCheck<=Points)
{
rands=1+(rand()%10);
RandX=1+(rand()%(Size.x));RandY=1+(rand()%(Size.y));
if (rands==1 && PointsCheck<=Points && PixelMap[RandX][RandY]==0)
{PixelMap[RandX][RandY]=CurrentNumber;CurrentNumber+=2;PointsCheck++;}
}
/***/
while(Done==false)
{
Done=true;
for(x=1;x<=Size.x;x++)
for(y=1;y<=Size.y;y++)
if(PixelMap[x][y]%2!=0 && PixelMap[x][y]!=-1)
{
if (PixelMap[x+1][y]==0) PixelMap[x+1][y]=PixelMap[x][y]+1;
if (PixelMap[x-1][y]==0) PixelMap[x-1][y]=PixelMap[x][y]+1;
if (PixelMap[x][y+1]==0) PixelMap[x][y+1]=PixelMap[x][y]+1;
if (PixelMap[x][y-1]==0) PixelMap[x][y-1]=PixelMap[x][y]+1;
}
for(x=1;x<=Size.x;x++)
for(y=1;y<=Size.y;y++)
if(PixelMap[x][y]!=0 && PixelMap[x][y]%2==0) {PixelMap[x][y]--;Done=false;}
}
for(x=1;x<=Size.x;x++){
for(y=1;y<=Size.y;y++)
{Out << PixelMap[x][y] << " ";}Out << endl;}
//ShowWindow (GetConsoleWindow(), SW_HIDE);
}
What you have here is the concept from which this site gets its name. You have a stack overflow:
int PixelMap[Size.x+1][Size.y+1];
If you want to allocate a large amount of memory, you need to do it dynamically (on the heap).
You can do this any number of ways. Since you are using C++, I recommend using a std::vector. The only trick is making the array 2-dimensional. Usually this is done in the same way as the one you allocated on the stack, except you don't get language syntax to help you:
vector<int> PixelMap( (Size.x+1) * (Size.y+1) );
Above, you'll need to calculate the linear index from the row/column. Something like:
int someval = PixelMap[ row * (size.y+1) + column ];
If you really want to use the [row][column] indexing syntax, you can either make a vector-of-vectors (not recommended), or you can index your rows:
vector<int> PixelMapData( (Size.x+1) * (Size.y+1) );
vector<int*> PixelMap( Size.x+1 );
PixelMap[0] = &PixelMapData[0];
for( int i = 0; i < Size.x+1; i++ ) {
PixelMap[i+1] = PixelMap[i] + Size.y + 1;
}
Now you can index in 2D:
int someval = PixelMap[row][col];
There's a couple of problems with your code:
First off:
int PixelMap[Size.x+1][Size.y+1];
for (x=1;x<=Size.x;x++)
for (y=1;y<=Size.y;y++)
PixelMap[x][y]=0;
In the above snipped you are never setting the value of PixelMap[0][0], or PixelMap0, etc. Basically those values will be undefined. Arrays in C++ are 0 indexed so you need to be sure you address those. Also, why are you using Size.x+1 and Size.y+1? Something feels wrong about that.
A better loop would be:
int PixelMap[Size.x][Size.y];
for (x=0;x<Size.x;x++)
for (y=0;y<Size.y;y++)
PixelMap[x][y]=0;
Second, this next bit of code is illegible:
while(PointsCheck<=Points)
{
rands=1+(rand()%10);
RandX=1+(rand()%(Size.x));
RandY=1+(rand()%(Size.y));
if (rands==1 && PointsCheck<=Points && PixelMap[RandX][RandY]==0)
{
PixelMap[RandX][RandY]=CurrentNumber;
CurrentNumber+=2;
PointsCheck++;
}
}
You're only incrementing PointsCheck if
PointsCheck <= Points
Why? You test for this to be true in your while condition. PointsCheck doesn't get incremented anywhere before this test.
rands is never guaranteed to be equal to 1 by the way, so your loop could go on for eternity (though unlikely).
The next loop suffers from similar problems as above:
while(Done==false)
{
Done=true;
What's the reason for this? You never break out of the while loop, and you never set Done to false, so the next block of code will only ever be executed once. remove this bit.
Your for-loops that follow should start at 0 and go while < Size(Size.x and Size.y)
for(x=0;x<Size.x;x++)
for(y=0;y<Size.y;y++)
Fix these issues first, and then if you still have a problem we can move on. And for all our sake, please use brackets {} to scope your for loops and if statements so that we can follow. Also, separate commands onto separate lines. It's a lot of work for us to follow more than one semicolon per line.
EDIT
Since you seem unwilling to fix these issues first:
This could be an issue with the amount of memory allocated on the stack for your program. If you're trying to create an array of 800x800 integers, then you're using 800*800*4 bytes = 2.4 MB of data. I know this is higher than visual studio's default limit of 1 MB, but since a 700x700 array uses 1.8 MB, then whatever program you're using has a higher default (or you set visual studio's higher, but not high enough).
See if you can set your limit to at least 3 MB. More is better, though. If this doesn't fix your scaling problem up to 800, then you have other issues.
EDIT2
I just noticed this:
sf::Vector2i Size;
//unimportant stuff
cin >> Size.x >> Size.y;
int PixelMap[Size.x+1][Size.y+1];
Vector2i will probably have default values for x and y. If you want to dynamically allocate more than what those are, you cannot statically say
PixelMap[Size.x][Size.y]
You need to dynamically allocate the array. I strongly suggest using something like a std::vector > for this
e.g.(untested code):
sf::Vector2i Size;
//unimportant stuff
cin >> Size.x >> Size.y;
std::vector<vector<int> > PixelMap;
//Initialize values to 0
for(size_t i=0; i < Size.x; ++i){
vector<int> nextVec;
for(size_t j=0; j < Size.y; ++j){
nextVec.push_back(0);
}
PixelMap.push_back(nextVec);
}
Not sure if this has anything to do with your crash (I would have added a comment, but I don't have the reputation), but here's a problem I noticed:
Your array indexing scheme is not consistent. Since you're using index 1 to indicate the first element, your bounds checking should look like this...
if (y!=1 && y!=Size.y && x!=1 && x!=Size.x && ...
...instead of this...
if (y!=0 && y!=Size.y && x!=0 && x!=Size.x && ...
[EDIT]
I just tried this:
...
cout << "asdf" << endl;
int PixelMap[Size.x+1][Size.y+1];
cout << "asdf" << endl;
...
and verified it's a stack overflow problem. So, as others mentioned above, allocate your pixel map on the heap and it should be fine.
BTW, this code...
int PixelMap[Size.x+1][Size.y+1];
is not standard C++. It's an extension some compilers provide, called 'variable length arrays'. Check this out for more info -> Why aren't variable-length arrays part of the C++ standard?
[/EDIT]
I'm working on an MC68HC11 Microcontroller and have an analogue voltage signal going in that I have sampled. The scenario is a weighing machine, the large peaks are when the object hits the sensor and then it stabilises (which are the samples I want) and then peaks again before the object roles off.
The problem I'm having is figuring out a way for the program to detect this stable point and average it to produce an overall weight but can't figure out how :/. One way I have thought about doing is comparing previous values to see if there is not a large difference between them but I haven't had any success. Below is the C code that I am using:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <iof1.h>
void main(void)
{
/* PORTA, DDRA, DDRG etc... are LEDs and switch ports */
unsigned char *paddr, *adctl, *adr1;
unsigned short i = 0;
unsigned short k = 0;
unsigned char switched = 1; /* is char the smallest data type? */
unsigned char data[2000];
DDRA = 0x00; /* All in */
DDRG = 0xff;
adctl = (unsigned char*) 0x30;
adr1 = (unsigned char*) 0x31;
*adctl = 0x20; /* single continuos scan */
while(1)
{
if(*adr1 > 40)
{
if(PORTA == 128) /* Debugging switch */
{
PORTG = 1;
}
else
{
PORTG = 0;
}
if(i < 2000)
{
while(((*adctl) & 0x80) == 0x00);
{
data[i] = *adr1;
}
/* if(i > 10 && (data[(i-10)] - data[i]) < 20) */
i++;
}
if(PORTA == switched)
{
PORTG = 31;
/* Print a delimeter so teemtalk can send to excel */
for(k=0;k<2000;k++)
{
printf("%d,",data[k]);
}
if(switched == 1) /*bitwise manipulation more efficient? */
{
switched = 0;
}
else
{
switched = 1;
}
PORTG = 0;
}
if(i >= 2000)
{
i = 0;
}
}
}
}
Look forward to hearing any suggestions :)
(The graph below shows how these values look, the red box is the area I would like to identify.
As you sample sequence has glitches (short lived transients) try to improve the hardware ie change layout, add decoupling, add filtering etc.
If that approach fails, then a median filter [1] of say five places long, which takes the last five samples, sorts them and outputs the middle one, so two samples of the transient have no effect on it's output. (seven places ...three transient)
Then a computationally efficient exponential averaging lowpass filter [2]
y(n) = y(n–1) + alpha[x(n) – y(n–1)]
choosing alpha (1/2^n, division with right shifts) to yield a time constant [3] of less than the underlying response (~50samples), but still filter out the noise. Increasing the effective fractional bits will avoid the quantizing issues.
With this improved sample sequence, thresholds and cycle count, can be applied to detect quiescent durations.
Additionally if the end of the quiescent period is always followed by a large, abrupt change then using a sample delay "array", enables the detection of the abrupt change but still have available the last of the quiescent samples for logging.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_filter
[2] http://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/72.php
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant
Note
Adding code for the above filtering operations will lower the maximum possible sample rate but printf can be substituted for something faster.
Continusously store the current value and the delta from the previous value.
Note when the delta is decreasing as the start of weight application to the scale
Note when the delta is increasing as the end of weight application to the scale
Take the X number of values with the small delta and average them
BTW, I'm sure this has been done 1M times before, I'm thinking that a search for scale PID or weight PID would find a lot of information.
Don't forget using ___delay_ms(XX) function somewhere between the reading values, if you will compare with the previous one. The difference in each step will be obviously small, if the code loop continuously.
Looking at your nice graphs, I would say you should look only for the falling edge, it is much consistent than leading edge.
In other words, let the samples accumulate, calculate the running average all the time with predefined window size, remember the deviation of the previous values just for reference, check for a large negative bump in your values (like absolute value ten times smaller then current running average), your running average is your value. You could go back a little bit (disregarding last few values in your average, and recalculate) to compensate for small positive bump visible in your picture before each negative bump...No need for heavy math here, you could not model the reality better then your picture has shown, just make sure that your code detect the end of each and every sample. You have to be fast enough with sample to make sure no negative bump was missed (or you will have big time error in your data averaging).
And you don't need that large arrays, running average is better based on smaller window size, smaller residual error in your case when you detect the negative bump.
This code intermittently works. It's running on a small microcontroller. It will work fine even after restarting the processor, but if I change some part of the code, it breaks. This makes me think that it's some kind of pointer bug or memory corruption. What's happening is the coordinate, p_res.pos.x is sometimes read as 0 (the incorrect value) and 96 (the correct value) when it is passed to write_circle_outlined. y seems to be correct most of the time. If anyone can spot anything obviously wrong please point it out!
int demo_game()
{
long int d;
int x, y;
struct WorldCamera p_viewer;
struct Point3D_LLA p_subj;
struct Point2D_CalcRes p_res;
p_viewer.hfov = 27;
p_viewer.vfov = 32;
p_viewer.width = 192;
p_viewer.height = 128;
p_viewer.p.lat = 51.26f;
p_viewer.p.lon = -1.0862f;
p_viewer.p.alt = 100.0f;
p_subj.lat = 51.20f;
p_subj.lon = -1.0862f;
p_subj.alt = 100.0f;
while(1)
{
fill_buffer(draw_buffer_mask, 0x0000);
fill_buffer(draw_buffer_level, 0xffff);
compute_3d_transform(&p_viewer, &p_subj, &p_res, 10000.0f);
x = p_res.pos.x;
y = p_res.pos.y;
write_circle_outlined(x, y, 1.0f / p_res.est_dist, 0, 0, 0, 1);
p_viewer.p.lat -= 0.0001f;
//p_viewer.p.alt -= 0.00001f;
d = 20000;
while(d--);
}
return 1;
}
The code for compute_3d_transform is:
void compute_3d_transform(struct WorldCamera *p_viewer, struct Point3D_LLA *p_subj, struct Point2D_CalcRes *res, float cliph)
{
// Estimate the distance to the waypoint. This isn't intended to replace
// proper lat/lon distance algorithms, but provides a general indication
// of how far away our subject is from the camera. It works accurately for
// short distances of less than 1km, but doesn't give distances in any
// meaningful unit (lat/lon distance?)
res->est_dist = hypot2(p_viewer->p.lat - p_subj->lat, p_viewer->p.lon - p_subj->lon);
// Save precious cycles if outside of visible world.
if(res->est_dist > cliph)
goto quick_exit;
// Compute the horizontal angle to the point.
// atan2(y,x) so atan2(lon,lat) and not atan2(lat,lon)!
res->h_angle = RAD2DEG(angle_dist(atan2(p_viewer->p.lon - p_subj->lon, p_viewer->p.lat - p_subj->lat), p_viewer->yaw));
res->small_dist = res->est_dist * 0.0025f; // by trial and error this works well.
// Using the estimated distance and altitude delta we can calculate
// the vertical angle.
res->v_angle = RAD2DEG(atan2(p_viewer->p.alt - p_subj->alt, res->est_dist));
// Normalize the results to fit in the field of view of the camera if
// the point is visible. If they are outside of (0,hfov] or (0,vfov]
// then the point is not visible.
res->h_angle += p_viewer->hfov / 2;
res->v_angle += p_viewer->vfov / 2;
// Set flags.
if(res->h_angle < 0 || res->h_angle > p_viewer->hfov)
res->flags |= X_OVER;
if(res->v_angle < 0 || res->v_angle > p_viewer->vfov)
res->flags |= Y_OVER;
res->pos.x = (res->h_angle / p_viewer->hfov) * p_viewer->width;
res->pos.y = (res->v_angle / p_viewer->vfov) * p_viewer->height;
return;
quick_exit:
res->flags |= X_OVER | Y_OVER;
return;
}
Structure for the results:
typedef struct Point2D_Pixel { unsigned int x, y; };
// Structure for storing calculated results (from camera transforms.)
typedef struct Point2D_CalcRes
{
struct Point2D_Pixel pos;
float h_angle, v_angle, est_dist, small_dist;
int flags;
};
The code is part of an open source project of mine so it's okay to post a lot of code here.
I see some of your calculation depends on p_viewer->yaw, but I do not see any intialization for p_viewer->yaw. Is this your problem?
A couple of things that seem sketchy:
You can return from compute_3d_transform without setting many of the fields in p_res/res but the caller never checks for this situation.
You consistently read from res->flags without initializing it first.
Whenever the output differs, it possibly means some value is not initialized and the outcome depends on the garbage value present in a variable. Keeping that in mind, I looked for uninitialized variables. the structure p_res is not initialized.
if(res->est_dist > cliph)
goto quick_exit;
that means if condition may turn out to be true or false depending on what garbage value is stored in res->est_dist. When if condition turns out to true, it goes straight to quick_exit label and doesn't update p_res.pos.x. If condition turned out to be false then its updated.
When I used to program C, I would use a divide and conquer debugging technique for this kind of problem to try to isolate the offending operation (paying attention to whether the symptoms change as debugging code is added, which is indicative of dangling pointer type bugs).
Essentially, start with the first line where the value is known to be good (and prove that it is consistently good at that line). Then identify where is it known to be bad. Then approx. halfway between the two points insert a test to see if it's bad. If not, then insert a test halfway between the mid-point and the known bad location, if it is bad then insert a test halfway between the mid-point and the known good location, and so on.
If the line identified is itself a function call, this process can be repeated in that called function, and so on.
When using this kind of approach, it's important to minimize the amount of added code and the artificial "noise", which can create timing changes.
Use this if you don't have (or can't use) an interactive debugger, or if the problem does not manifest when using one.