That is the correct definition of a point index. Locations, however, are not point indices. That said, I can't quite find in this thread where the unavailability of indices is discussed, so I'm not sure exactly what this is about. I'm really just bored waiting for a cache.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Fabricio Chamon <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, thanks for taking a look at it. > > Well, maybe I'm missing the concept of point index then. > Is it correct to assume a Point Index is an incremental value assigned to > points, and that there's no gaps between it's values? > > example, a pointcloud with 5 particles has point indices 1,2,3,4 and 5. > if I delete any 3 of them, now I get regenerated indices: 1,2 and 3. > > now if this is correct, how can a point be unavailable? > > sorry if I completely misunderstood the whole idea of point indices... > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
