-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
OCCT Quirks #2
Comments
One of the most interesting assert failures is this one:
The tolerance is not having an effect on the polygon count, which I assume is related to tessellation. Here's the assert that fails: https://github.com/jmwright/cqparts/blob/master/tests/t_cqparts/test_codecs.py#L352 |
Could you try with more extreme tolerance values? Is the geometry complex enough? |
Switching to the following definitely does make the assert failure go away.
With I'll just update that test. It seems like the tessellate functionality is working, it just doesn't act quite like the old one did. One other thing to note is that with OCCT 7.3.x tessellation doesn't seem to hang with high CPU utilization when the tolerance is set to 0.001 and smaller, which is a problem we've had fairly often with the version of OCE we've been running on. Generating 3972 polygons using a tolerance of 0.00001 is not noticeably slower than using the tolerance of 0.2. |
I'm going to close this issue and open issues for specific issues as needed. |
@adam-urbanczyk I'm about 80% of the way through a cqparts update (not counting documentation) to make it compatible with CQ 2.0. During that process, I've been using the OCP branch of CQ. I'm still fixing things, but I've noticed differences in bounding boxes, volumes, and one case where the number of polygons is different. This seems consistent with what you're seeing with OCCT 7.3.x. If it will help, I can post the test output here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: