Marcus Lindblom wrote:
So I'd say I expect them to be functional, but I can't promise that
they're bug-free.
They're not even functional. :-/
Actually, they're horribly buggy and quite unusable. (Have tested
sphere<->cyl and box<->cyl. Converting my cylinders to AABB and
testing produces valid and reasonable results (although not very
useful in the application). So, I'm quite confident in my geo->cyl and
cyl->geo functions, but for cylindervolume-intersection tests, I get
false positives and false negatives all over the place.
Using OOBB's would be acceptable here for me, but they are not available.
I'll dig up some cyl<->sphere algorithm from the net and see how that
works out, otherwise I'll be forced to abandon the cylinder approach
altogether.
Best Regards
/Marcus
What does the Cylinder Sphere intersection test do in OpenSG, did you
look into it?
Is it conceptually wrong, or does it have bugs?
For the cylinder sphere part there is an article from JGT about Point
Cylinder Distance (with code)
see http://www.acm.org/jgt/papers/BarbierGalin04/
I also don't think OBBs are an option, as they are difficult to update
under (large) deformations.
Regards,
Christoph
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
