Bounding boxes are not visible/working for custom meta data packets (Re-tag)

Answered

Follow

Mohamed Thasin

• April 30, 2020 12:27

Since I am not getting any response for my old post, I am tagging a new post. 

https://support.networkoptix.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360043971033-Bounding-boxes-are-not-visible-working-for-custom-meta-data-packets

 

Please provide some hint to crack this issue. Any comments to solve the issue is appreciable. 

0

• Official comment

  

  Nx Support

  • May 06, 2020 21:07

  Hi Mohamed,

   

  This post is just to let you know that we did not forget about your problem. Sorry for keeping you waiting, we are on it, hopefully we will come back to you with a portion of new insight on your problem quite soon.

   

  Don't you mind if we continue the discussion in the old thread?

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Mohamed Thasin

  • May 07, 2020 06:20

  Thanks for the response, Actually I fixed the issue 2 days ago. 

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Nx Support

  • May 07, 2020 07:20

  That's great!

   

  Could you please tell what the problem was?

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Mohamed Thasin

  • May 07, 2020 07:54

  yeah Sure,

  previously I was setting track Id like below,

   

  objectMetadata->setTrackId(m_trackId);

   

  I wasn't aware what to put for setTrackID. So, I used m_trackId. Since it didn't throw any error at both compilation and running time, I thought I am doing right. Finally I figured out  m_trackId has same value for all the objects after that I removed this and passed object id where object id is increment value starts from 0 to UUID generator. 

   

  i.e., 

  int id = context["id"]; // unique value for each object in image

  nx::sdk::Uuid uuid(id & 0xff, (id >> 8) & 0xff, (id >> 16) & 0xff, (id >> 24) & 0xff,

  0, 0, 0, 0,
  0, 0, 0, 0,
  0, 0, 0, 0);

  objectMetadataWork->setTrackId(uuid);

   

  After this modification, I was able to get multiple bouding boxes. 

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Nx Support

  • May 07, 2020 09:42

  Thank you very much for the explanation, great that you managed to figure it out. Probably, we need to add some checks for this kind of errors.

  So, I am closing both related threads on the forum and creating a task to add a corresponding check to the SDK.

  Thanks again!

   

  -1

  Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.