Subject:
|
RE: Dimensions of the parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:19:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
682 times
|
| |
|
|
Anders Isaksson wrote:
> - Just don't include equality (=) in your collision test! (?)
This would be my bet too. Allow for a small margin/overlap
caused by rounding errors.
Since you cannot tell anything about inside/outside of a part
but only have a bunch of faces (triangles and quads), the idea
of comparing every face in one part with every face in another
part is very clever.
BTW, how will you handle two "4073 Plate 1 x 1 Round" on top
of each other, where one of them is rotated, say 12 degrees?
(Couldn't think of a better example, but it shows the problem :-)
/Lars
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Dimensions of the parts
|
| (...) That wouldn't work all the time. Imagine that you have 2 parts at the exact same location, if I allow a small margin the program would think that they are not touching each other. (...) That's the only solution I found so far, couldn't think (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Dimensions of the parts
|
| Lars C. Hassing skrev i meddelandet <57F1FE754246D211A98...aarhus>... (...) One could go further down the algorithmic lane, and construct a 'bounding box' or 'convex hull' to get some indication of inside/outside. Not watertight though (think Lego (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
