[OpenSCAD] Getting more information

Dan Shriver tabbydan at gmail.com
Thu Jul 4 18:32:21 EDT 2019

yes, I've simplified it to where it seems to work.  So I know it breaks
down where I do "wave" which interpolates between one curve and another
using sin() (to give a smooth curve rather than a linear transition).

I'll try a smaller set of interpolations that might be easier for me to
view completely.

Earlier in the email thread I took a snapshot of the pink edges

[image: image.png]

moving around the model I didn't see any pink / purple facets.  There may
have been some present, I find it hard to investigate the whole thing
because it is big and as I rotate or zoom in / out sometimes I can't see
anything; I do know if there are pink/purple facets they are in the vast
minority as I think I viewed most of the facets

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:42 PM adrianv <avm4 at cornell.edu> wrote:

> DanS wrote
> > So it seems like I only get the:
> >
> > DEPRECATED: Using ranges of the form [begin:end] with begin value greater
> > than the end value is deprecated.
> >
> > warning under a special case:
> > and the message appears partway through a bunch of other debug messages
> > (suggesting it built one structure, and then later hits the error doing
> > the
> > difference or the later mirror.
> I have seen behavior with regards to debug message that suggest to me that
> the code is not necessarily executed in order.   Does anybody know?
> > Also nothing is drawn because there is a
> > problem somewhere.
> > I should mention I DO have loops where start is greater than end, but in
> > the cases I intend to be that way, I have an index value of -1.
> You mean a step value of -1?  Like you wrote [10:-1:0]?  Nothing wrong with
> that, and it should not trigger the message.  The warning message is just
> for ranges that look like [a:b] where a>b.  Note also that it is only a
> warning message.  You can still run your code to completion.  OpenSCAD will
> count such a range starting at b and ascending to a.  (It will not start at
> a and go by steps of -1 down to b.)
> > If I union arches2(16) with a cube I get the: "ERROR: CGAL error in
> > CGAL_Nef_polyhedron3(): CGAL ERROR: assertion violation! Expr: e_below !=
> > SHalfedge_handle() File:
> >
> /opt/mxe/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32.static.posix/include/CGAL/Nef_3/SNC_FM_decorator.h
> > Line: 426" message
> Unioning with a cube is supposed to be a test of validity of your
> polyhedron.  I recall previously someone else said it might have to do with
> rounding errors.  Have you tried simplifying your model until it works?  It
> sounds like arches2(16) is producing an invalid result.
> > arches2(16) does a skin over a bunch of 16 vertex polygons (that you can
> > roughly view as being horsehoes, wishbones, arches).  The second numeric
> > argument represents a thickness (it has a default value), a boolean
> > argument (default false) determines if the object is "solid" (that is not
> > horseshoe shaped but a convex polygon with no concavity, also with fewer
> > vertices)
> >
> > So I'm confused how to approach debugging this.
> You said it's a skin over "a bunch" of 16 vertex polygons.  So what happens
> if you skin the first two only.  Can you union the result with a cube?
> Does
> it look ok in thrown together mode?
> I do not know what it means that you got pink edges in "thrown together"
> view.  I haven't seen that.
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss at lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openscad.org/pipermail/discuss_lists.openscad.org/attachments/20190704/7b0afb14/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 19696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openscad.org/pipermail/discuss_lists.openscad.org/attachments/20190704/7b0afb14/attachment.png>

More information about the Discuss mailing list