Subject:
|
Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:02:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
394 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Damien Guichard wrote:
> Thanks to Eric Olson for more precision: he used bounding boxes, not collisions.
Maybe I'm missing a technical distinction, but it seems he used bounding
boxes *for* collision detection, as opposed to using exact volumes.
> Also I still think, whereas higher order convex volumes as cubes much
> simplify decomposition, you can not remove tetrahedron for hill cases.
> Because it the most atomic volume and can not be built using cubes.
True.
My point was, marking up the LDraw part files for volume decomposition
would either:
a) Be low-effort, but result in very inefficient decompositions
b) Be high-effort, and give efficient volumes, but would essentially be
a separate definition of the parts (ie, it would not be based on the
existing lines and polygons).
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
| (...) "marking up" would be better done by machine algorithm, and would encompass the Connection Point proposal at the same time. It would indeed yield a separate definition of the parts. A lot of high-end CAD programs read polygons (like we have) (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
| (...) Well, I can have a twisted mind sometimes. I know these moments when the best idea today, will just be plain stupid tomorrow. Thanks to Eric Olson for more precision: he used bounding boxes, not collisions. Also I still think, whereas higher (...) (23 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
