> Unfortunately, I think the "robust" way to handle that particular issue is to
> report "sets" of loops - one outer and zero or more inner - as individual
> events, and even using that definition multiple "events" are possible for
> sufficiently complex surface interactions.
Yep, that is exac
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, phoenix <284281...@qq.com> wrote:
> > But remember you have another challenge for something like that -
> recognizing when a curve-surface intersection is not actually part of the
> outer loop but is instead an "inner" curve segment. One approach might be
> to mai
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM, phoenix <284281...@qq.com> wrote:
> > 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, wi
> 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
> But remember you have another challenge for something like that - recognizing
> when a curve-surface intersection is not actually part of the outer loop but
> is instead an "inner" curve segment. One approach might be to maintain a 2D
> "grid" of unit squares that maps to the Bezier patches a
Vlad,That looks better but does that flag only apply to src/libdm or does it apply to everything after as well (in other directories)?It can be disabled in the top-level CMakeLists.txt file if QT is enabled for all directories, but it certainly shouldn't be half with the warning and half without.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:44 PM, phoenix <284281...@qq.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> After several weeks' work on the surface-surface intersections, it's
> improved significantly and can handle lots of cases that cannot be handled
> well before. It's more accurate and correct, ready for the evaluation.
>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:04 AM, phoenix <284281...@qq.com> wrote:
> > If I'm interpreting the bottom part of p.624 and the top of p.625 in
> that paper correctly, we cannot assume this property holds for general
> NURBS or B-Spline surfaces (intuitively I wouldn't expect it to) but if the
> pape
