On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:03 AM Anuj Verma wrote:
>
>
> > For linear segments, it will save more than 90% according to your
> > table. Then you will see that splitting Bezier curves is not such a
> > bad option. In general, Bezier curves are used in graphics because it
> > is easy to split and
> Did you miss the last two mails from Alexei and me? I missed a few
> mails a few days ago for no reason and even got a few duplicate
> mails.
I think I received everything. It's only that sometimes I start
writing an e-mail and finish it hours later – in this case, Alexei has
answered
> For linear segments, it will save more than 90% according to your
> table. Then you will see that splitting Bezier curves is not such a
> bad option. In general, Bezier curves are used in graphics because it
> is easy to split and flatten them. I would be very surprised if
> distance fields
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:06 AM Anuj Verma wrote:
>
> > Your profiling results indicate that a lot of time is spent
> > calculating distances. Perhaps, you can work with much faster
> > square-distances (they can be signed or signs stored separately) and
> > apply square root as a final
Replying to myself...
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:11 AM Alexei Podtelezhnikov
wrote:
>
> Hi Anuj,
>
> > A) Line Segment: ~0.32 microseconds
> > B) Conic Bezier: ~1.08 microseconds
> > C) Cubic Bezier: ~1.25 microseconds
> >
>
> I am very surprised indeed. In the linear case, it is a trivial
>
Hi Anuj,
> A) Line Segment: ~0.32 microseconds
> B) Conic Bezier: ~1.08 microseconds
> C) Cubic Bezier: ~1.25 microseconds
>
I am very surprised indeed. In the linear case, it is a trivial
cross-product divided by the length of a segment, or the smaller of
two distances to the ends. There are no
Hello Werner,
Thanks for checking the code and for your comments.
Did you miss the last two mails from Alexei and me?
I missed a few mails a few days ago for no reason and
even got a few duplicate mails.
> *I think he means that the code must be optimized as much as possible*
> *to get fast
