For a problem that is theoretically binary (either in, or out?) filling polys can have really fiddly corner (literally!) cases.
Thanks for the WIP screenshots; they made me feel much better about my own slicers/rasterisers.
(there's probably a trick I'm missing*, but so far I've had the most robust results for 3D booleans by chasing fiddly overlaps/intersections on lower facets, all the way down to 0-D if necessary)
* like working directly with cubics, à la Jim Blinn?
For a problem that is theoretically binary (either in, or out?) filling polys can have really fiddly corner (literally!) cases.
FTR, in case someone is interested: "predicate" is the name for functions that output booleans, so a more general search term is "geometric predicate".
Filling polys is especially hard if you want to run on the GPU where access to denormals is inconsistent/nonexistent. Most of the algorithms in CS literature simply won't work. It's a fun challenge, at least!
Comments
For a problem that is theoretically binary (either in, or out?) filling polys can have really fiddly corner (literally!) cases.
Thanks for the WIP screenshots; they made me feel much better about my own slicers/rasterisers.
(there's probably a trick I'm missing*, but so far I've had the most robust results for 3D booleans by chasing fiddly overlaps/intersections on lower facets, all the way down to 0-D if necessary)
* like working directly with cubics, à la Jim Blinn?
FTR, in case someone is interested: "predicate" is the name for functions that output booleans, so a more general search term is "geometric predicate".
Filling polys is especially hard if you want to run on the GPU where access to denormals is inconsistent/nonexistent. Most of the algorithms in CS literature simply won't work. It's a fun challenge, at least!
It definitely surprised me with how fiddly it was to get working! Thank you for commenting!