Hi,
> Noticed in your log you ran into a tradeoff between tree build depth
> and curve quality. This is actually a useful thing to consider in
> more detail - once you have the initial bounding box set, I think
> there may be a refinement approach you can take that involves a lot
> less overhead than deeper tree builds.
I also think about this approach when I write my code - but it's not
implemented yet because it needs further looking into the surface tree building
process. Now I just use the constructor of SurfaceTree to build a surface tree
with a max depth for a face (because it is easy to implement with the existing
functions), but when calculating the intersection, I only consider the useful
parts (not the entire tree of course). You are right, to build a surface tree
with deeper hierarchy takes a long time and consumes lots of memory resources,
but only a small subset of it is used in the latter calculation. Maybe the
first step is to look deeper into how we build a surface tree and find a way to
integrate it into the intersection calculation process - that is, only useful
parts of the tree will be generated. When this is finished, maybe a tolerance
value will be adapted so that we do not use a constant INTERSECT_MAX_DEPTH,
which is not quite elegant.
Cheers!
Wu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
