> Am I correct that your tests so far have not needed to track the fuzzy
> uncertainties involved with propagating "error bars" through multiple
> intersections? Let's say, for example, that two curves intersect at a point,
> within some tolerance. However, if we test both of those curves and that
> intersection point against a surface, one curve intersects the surface within
> tolerance, one does not, and the point does. What do we do?
I mainly work on individual intersections currently, and take the fuzzy
uncertainties that might happen with multiple intersections into consideration.
Although the default tolerance is 0.001, in the implementation, I try to make
it even more accurate (without too much effect on performance), so as to reduce
the accumulative errors. But as for the example you mentioned above, which
seems contradictory, may still happen. (I think a more common case is that the
two curves both intersect the surface but the point doesn't, because the point
has larger uncertainty due to curve-curve intersection, and the curves are more
accurate.) So when we have multiple intersections (e.g. during evaluation a
NURBS combination), we need to track the fuzzy uncertainties, and use different
tolerances to suit the propagating error?
Cheers!
Wu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
