Skip to content
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

surface boundary shrinkage after remeshing #29

Closed
xiaolong7 opened this issue Nov 2, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed

surface boundary shrinkage after remeshing #29

xiaolong7 opened this issue Nov 2, 2022 · 6 comments

Comments

@xiaolong7
Copy link

Hello, I tried the isotropic remeshing algorithm (tri_size_adapt=0, tri_shape_adapt=0) on a surface mesh with boundary and found that the surface boundary shrinks after remeshing, as shown in the below screenshot. Do you have any idea why that happened? Is there any way to preserve the original surface boundary as much as possible? Thank you!

image

@BrunoLevy
Copy link
Owner

Yes, it is due to the remeshing method that I'm using (Voronoi Parallel Linear Enumeration), that places the points in such a way that it optimizes the sampling of the shape (w.r.t. a certain measure of optimality), and this optimal sampling does not necessarily have the points on the surface.

To mitigate this, it is necessary to reproject the points onto the initial surface. It will be supported in v1.8.2. A release candidate will be pushed soon (within a couple of weeks the latest)

@xiaolong7
Copy link
Author

Yes, it is due to the remeshing method that I'm using (Voronoi Parallel Linear Enumeration), that places the points in such a way that it optimizes the sampling of the shape (w.r.t. a certain measure of optimality), and this optimal sampling does not necessarily have the points on the surface.

To mitigate this, it is necessary to reproject the points onto the initial surface. It will be supported in v1.8.2. A release candidate will be pushed soon (within a couple of weeks the latest)

Got it. Thank you!

@BrunoLevy
Copy link
Owner

On its way, see this thread. We'll see whether this works (and now we have non-regression tests to make sure I'm not going to break anything). If it works it will be in v1.8.2.

@BrunoLevy
Copy link
Owner

image
Nearly there it seems !!

@BrunoLevy
Copy link
Owner

Pushed it ! Would you test and tell me ?

@xiaolong7
Copy link
Author

Pushed it ! Would you test and tell me ?

I tried it and it has improved a lot! Thanks a lot!
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants