The Cube primitive class doesn't have the same default subdivisions in both
engines.
and in your Cube constructors code you do not set them.
Fabrice
On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:41 PM, DBird wrote:
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> I'm still on the merge-problem. Perhaps you could give me a quick info
> about that.
>
> I'm using the merge-class to put cubes together, something like this:
>
> // Creating my "word-Cube" witch persists
> var myCube01 = new Cube( { material:"green#lime" } );
> myCube01.x = -300;
> view.scene.addChild(myCube01);
>
> // Creating the source-cube, for adding cubes as often as needed
> var myCube02 = new Cube( { material:"green#lime" } );
> myCube02.x = -150;
> // and not adding it to the scene. the merge-object will do this.
>
> // create MergeTool
> var merge:Merge = new Merge(false, true, false);
>
> // Merge them baby
> merge.apply(myCube01, myCube02);
>
> // After that we have 3 Cubes, because i put myCube02 again in
> myCube01. is like a copy of it.
> myCube02.x = 150;
> merge.apply(myCube01, myCube02);
>
> After testing this with Away3.6 and Broomstick I got these results
> from the debug-panel:
>
> Test with Molehill & Broomstick
>
> Cubes Polys normal Polys after merge
> 2 24 48/0
> 3 36 144/0
> 4 48 384/0
> 5 60 960/0
>
> Test with FP10.2 & Away3.6
>
> Cubes Polys normal Polys after merge
> 2 07/24 07/12
> 3 11/36 11/12
> 4 15/48 15/12
> 5 19/60 19/12
>
> What is happening with the molehill-test? A bit to many polys...
>
> I thing, because of this I can't compile your example
> http://www.closier.nl/broomstick/mergetest.html
>
> Any idea?
>
> Thanks again in advance!
> Dirk
>
> On 30 Jun., 15:23, Fabrice3D <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Yes they are, but this sounds a bit more tricky...
>>
>> not really trickky, just a bit more work, a brick = from / to
>> so if you loop over the mesh indices vector, you simply increase count + =
>> mybrickfacecount
>>
>>> To get one "brick" out (to delete it), i have do some vertice-operation or a
>>> complete rebuild without that deleted brick. is this correct?
>>
>> yes and no.
>>
>> yes it is correct you can do this way.
>> no, you could ask FaceHelper class for this dirty job ;)
>>
>> Fabrice
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2011, at 2:08 PM,DBirdwrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Wow, that's really good news! Thank you very much.
>>
>>> Ah, and for all who what to watch it, here is an example from Fabrice:
>>> http://www.closier.nl/broomstick/mergetest.html
>>
>>> ... and some addition background information:
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg21091.html
>>
>>>> if your bricks have exact same face count, it would be also easy to alter
>>>> them vertice wize into the buffers.
>>> Yes they are, but this sounds a bit more tricky...
>>
>>> After some code-reading I found out, that after the merge, there is no
>>> access to all my objects I have merged in my master-mesh. To get one
>>> "brick" out (to delete it), i have do some vertice-operation or a
>>> complete rebuild without that deleted brick. is this correct?
>>
>>> Dirk
