Hello Sean,
Thank you for the prompt reply. My reply follows:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:21 AM, brlcad <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So you basically have 9 or 10 weeks remaining... :)
>
Yes, which is about the time I need. I'm willing to dedicate 4-5 hours a
day for the next 10 weeks to work on this. That is the system in my
university. We have 3 whole months off of university to work on our
projects. So I'll be working out of home for my project for the next 2 and
a half months.
That's a rather broad topic category. You have your work cut out for you,
> but you must narrow your focus. You don't have nearly enough time to do
> everything you are asking about. Both methods of implementation and
> applications domains are two very broad categories on their own that you
> could write a book on. I'd suggest focusing on a coding project over
> applications of CAD since it may be more easily planned, measured, and
> achieved.
>
I agree with you there. I took a broad topic, cause this is the first time
I'm even exposed to the back-end of a "CAD" software. It took me some time
to learn what exactly being "specific" meant. Now, I have a much clearer
idea, since I've been reading up a lot from articles on the official
Documentation and the wiki page. This is also my first time with open
source, so please bear with me if I'm a bit slow to grasp the general
protocols.
But yes, simply focusing on a coding project should be more easily planned,
measured and achieved. Based on what comes from our discussions here, I'll
change my project title to a more apt one.
>
> I suggest sticking to just coding, frankly, since you cannot realistically
> inspect the implementations of most of the commercial CAD software out
> there, only the end-behavior result. Moreover, most of the commercial CAD
> softwares are built on specific commercial geometry kernels, many of which
> are cross-licensed amongst many of the other CAD systems. So comparing
> them becomes a very very complex topic.
>
I've been wondering about this myself. I got this idea of comparing
algorithms, from the fact that I could finally compare my output with
industry standards on already existing scales of measurement to show the
effectiveness of what I've done. *My question was if this was possible? Or
would this be possible if I lessened the scope to just open source
applications? *
If it is tedious like you have mentioned, I'm willing to cut that out off
the project scope.
> I'm going to skip a lot of questions from your e-mail because they're more
> a brain dump than anything. Many of your questions depend on the answers
> to other questions or are completely off-base. You're all over the place,
> lacking specific goals, and up against a very specific deadline.
>
I agree and I apologize. My only aim is to learn more about CAD systems and
contribute code to the open source community. Since BRL-CAD falls in my
field of study, I thought a project with you guys would be really cool. I
was being all over the place, cause I've been trying to figure out the
software and it's code all by myself. I've been doing a lot of homework,
but when I tried to identify my specific goals, I failed. But this is
mainly my fault, cause I've been lacking communication when there's a whose
listserve of people willing to help me out. I wish to change that from now
on. I'll also try to be more coherent with my emails.
I also want to clarify that this project wouldn't mark the end of our
correspondence. I wish to stay, contribute and gain more experience.
That project will probably take a minimum of a month full-time effort to
> complete plus another week for overhead and learning time, so you should
> plan accordingly. Given you only have 9 or 10 weeks remaining, you will
> need to start immediately if you intend to finish within 9-10 months. With
> the other analysis work you were proposing, I don't see that happening..
>
Agreed. I'm willing to stick to just the coding part of it and start
immediately.
The Implicit_to_NURBS_conversion wiki page is the "real deal" and more
> appropriate for your project. You should expect it to take a month minimum
> to implement plus another month for overhead discussions, learning,
> documentation, testing, etc, spread throughout.
>
I didn't know this. Thanks for the clarification!
The task you found involves converting geometry that is in non-BREP (i.e.,
> probably implicit) form (with CSG operators) into BREP (i.e., NURBS) form
> (with CSG operators).
>
This makes things much clearer.
You don't have time for that. ;)
>
> Implicit-to-NURBS or NURBS tessellation is about as simple as it gets and
> either (but not both) are viable coding projects. Moreover, the time
> estimates on the NURBS_TODO page would be in units of weeks, not days, for
> someone getting started (so 2 days becomes 2 weeks minimum).
>
I can logically understand the implicit-to-NURBS project better than the
tessellation one, so I'm sticking to the conversion project. Maybe
tessellation can be my next project :). And about the time I have left,
like you said, I'm willing to focus on a more specific goal over the next 2
months to complete this project.
> Most are already converted, but only as a C API function. There needs to
> be a command that walks a hierarchy, converts the geometry to NURBS, then
> writes a new hierarchy. Maybe call the command "brepify".
>
Thanks for this clarification. When I was looking through the source code
for primitives, I was sure I saw some BREP and NURBS functions. *This is
what you're refering to as C API functions, yeah? *
*So, the sole command I'll be working on is "brepify". This command allows
users to convert primitives to BREP format. (The specific goal I need to
have?)*
You have time but only if you focus on getting familiar with the code NOW
> and stop fiddling with comparisons and research. If you do that, you
> should be able to finish comfortably with time available to document your
> progress and perform ray trace visualization comparisons.
>
*Sounds super! But where do I start? Just start looking into the code to
understand the logic?*
> I strongly suggest breaking your mails up into much smaller chunks. You
> should have no more than one question per e-mail if you need to get a quick
> response, plus it should help you prioritize your questions and clarify
> your goals. Look forward to your follow-up. ;-)
>
Again, I apologize for the haphazard manner in which my previous mails were
drafted. I promise to improve!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
