jim_klessig wrote

> I would disagree. Your routine would be making some (probably un stated)

> assumptions about the shape. Such as that the points do not form a

> "cave", and probably what points represent a boundary.

> For example how would your routine deal with the example I gave, of 8

> points representing the corners of a cube.There are multiple "correct"

> representations of that set of points.

> I would suspect that your routine would assume those points are either a

> cube shaped bump in a flat plane, or a cubical hole in an otherwise flat

> plane. Both of which are making perfectly reasonable assumptions for

> making it topographical map.But those assumptions would be/could be

> incorrect for just that set of 8 points, "floating in space" with no other

> information.Essentially there are too many degrees of freedom for the

> problem to be solvable as he posed it.

You are correct. My routine eliminates any duplicate XY points, so it would

not tessellate an exact cube or an overhang correctly; however, for purposes

of my headlight bezel, or 99% of our topo maps, it works fine.

Charles

--

Sent from:

http://forum.openscad.org/_______________________________________________

OpenSCAD mailing list

[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org