# Equation for control point distance for fixed-length cubic Bézier path (with specific constraints)

A particular Stack Overflow question asks how to construct a specific cubic Bézier path of constant length. I have experimentally determined the ideal distances of the control points from the nearest on-path handle and plotted them as seen here:

The graph in blue is the equation I am after. (The $y$ intercept appears to be at $\cos(30°)$.) The graph in red is an ellipse (not the right equation).

Does anyone have either a guess or (better yet) a derivation of what the actual formula ought to be that predicts the distance of a control point oriented $90°$ to the path end points to achieve a constant-length path?

Edit: Here's a diagram showing the constraints on the path:

1. The arrangement of the control points $P_1$ and $P_2$ is always orthogonal to the line connecting the end points $P_0$ and $P_3$.

2. The distance $h$ of each control point from the associated end point is the same for both control points. $|P_1-P_0| = |P_3-P_2|$

3. The two control points are always on opposite sides of line connecting the end points (they're always in a stair-step, producing a curve looking like an 's').

4. The goal is to find an equation for $h$ in terms of $d$ (the distance between the two end points).

Edit 2: I can simplify these parametric equations for cubic Bézier curves for my constraints and arrive at:

\begin{align*} x(t) &= -6ht^3 + 9ht^2 -3ht\\ y(t)& = -2dt^3 + 3dt^2 \end{align*}

How do I integrate from $t=0\ldots1$ to get the length of the curve and then express $h$ in terms of $d$?

• So if I understand correctly: given two points and a length, you want to find a Bezier curve made of three control points, with the prescribed endpoints and arc length? – user7530 Nov 23 '11 at 20:13
• @user7530 Yes, with the added constraint that the control points are always at right angles to the line connecting the two end points. I'll edit the question with a diagram for clarity. – Phrogz Nov 23 '11 at 21:04
• The particularly nasty thing about your problem is that one requires the services of elliptic integrals to express the arclength of a cubic Bézier curve (see this for instance). Inverting that elliptic integral is an even hairier deal. – J. M. is a poor mathematician Nov 24 '11 at 8:44
• See also this demonstration. – J. M. is a poor mathematician Nov 24 '11 at 8:52
• @J.M. Thanks for the details. That's unfortunate; I had hoped that the constraints on the points would sufficiently restrict the solution to something with a simple closed form. – Phrogz Nov 24 '11 at 16:27

The length of a Bézier curve $$x(t) = x_0 (1-t)^3 + x_1 3 (1-t)^2 t + x_2 3 (1-t) t^2 + x_3 t^3 \\ y(t) = y_0 (1-t)^3 + y_1 3 (1-t)^2 t + y_2 3 (1-t) t^2 + y_3 t^3$$ is given by $$L = \int\limits_0^1 \sqrt{ \left( { d x(t) \over d t } \right)^2 + \left( { d y(t) \over d t } \right)^2 } dt$$ The length of your curve is $$L = 3 \int\limits_0^1 \sqrt { \left ( d 2 t (t-1) \right ) ^2 + \left ( h + h 6 t (t-1) \right ) ^2 } dt$$ Since $L=1$ for $h=0, d=1$ you are searching for the solutions to $${ 1 \over 3 } - \int\limits_0^1 \sqrt{ \left ( d 2 t (t-1) \right ) ^2 + \left ( h + h 6 t (t-1) \right ) ^2 } dt = 0$$ I don't think there are any analytical solutions to that (but I'm not a mathematician anyway). However, numerically, $$h = 0.459 \sqrt{ 1 - d^2 } + 0.407 (1 - d^2)^{1.2065}, 0 \le d \le 1$$ yields a Bézier curve with length between 0.996 and 1.008, i.e. the error in the curve length is less than 1% (-0.4% to +0.8%).