Subject:
|
Re: Dimensions of the parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:21:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
682 times
|
| |
|
|
"Lars C. Hassing" wrote:
>
> 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.
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.
> 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.
That's the only solution I found so far, couldn't think of anything
else.
> 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 :-)
That's a good question, I forgot we're not using real circles so I'll
need to find a solution for that too (besides the obvious "edit all
parts and resize the studs"). I was thinking about doing a primitive
substitution more a less like the one you do in L3P, I'm trying to write
a part editor and one of the ideas I had was to allow circular
primitives, but I don't have enough time for all of my ideas...
Leonardo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | RE: Dimensions of the parts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
