Hi Tim,
That's the one thing that's strange. I get failures to lock-upon the 6x6 dishes if my TOL is < about 0.05. For example, 0.01 will lock up some but not all of the dishes.
And to make it worse, some pattern parts have markings intentionally authored with triangles < 0.05. (My guess is that these triangles were induced to remove T junctions.)
Right - I thought about that, but if the choice is between two somewhat arbitrary outputs for a wrong input, I might as well pick the one that requires less processing time. :-) I'm screening now to see which parts have 'close' outputs despite not having tiny input triangles. One technic part that failed this test had some authoring problems.
My hope was that, with no points closer than TOL after running, I could write the T-splitting with no concern for numeric precision (because TOL would be significantly bigger than the real floating point limits I would face).
But it may instead be the case that where the points are close together, the input was funky and the output can be funky too.
Cheers
Ben
Tim Gould Wrote:The one notable exception is if a part used a rotation on something really long to match with another detail. Which is unreliable design and best caught at the design/review stage.
That's the one thing that's strange. I get failures to lock-upon the 6x6 dishes if my TOL is < about 0.05. For example, 0.01 will lock up some but not all of the dishes.
And to make it worse, some pattern parts have markings intentionally authored with triangles < 0.05. (My guess is that these triangles were induced to remove T junctions.)
Quote:You could get rid of the problem by iterating until no matches are found. But that seems like overkill to me and is possibly more likely to result in false joins.
Right - I thought about that, but if the choice is between two somewhat arbitrary outputs for a wrong input, I might as well pick the one that requires less processing time. :-) I'm screening now to see which parts have 'close' outputs despite not having tiny input triangles. One technic part that failed this test had some authoring problems.
My hope was that, with no points closer than TOL after running, I could write the T-splitting with no concern for numeric precision (because TOL would be significantly bigger than the real floating point limits I would face).
But it may instead be the case that where the points are close together, the input was funky and the output can be funky too.
Cheers
Ben