[OpenSCAD] User Poll: What do you want to see from OpenSCAD development?
openscad at jordan.maileater.net
Tue Nov 12 19:11:36 EST 2019
On 11/12/2019 3:15 PM, nop head wrote:
> It would mean I could accidentally design non-printable object instead
> of being told it was non-manifold.
Why should OpenSCAD concern itself with printability? If it does,
shouldn't it also reject ludicrously large objects or ludicrously small
ones? Shouldn't it insist that all values be multiples of the print
Maybe it's algorithmically impossible to disambiguate triangle-soup
representations that have shared edges. (I don't know one way or
another.) If so, that should prevent exports of such objects to
triangle-soup file formats, but shouldn't prevent it for file formats
where there's no problem.
If your slicer can't handle such an object... then that's on the slicer.
> OpenSCAD can't represents objects with more than 3 dimensions, with
> dimensions of zero or infinity or imaginary numbers. All of these are
> mathematically possible by why spend time extending OpenSCAD to
> generate them when they are not physically possible?
See, what we're disagreeing on is whether the objects being discussed
are physically impossible, *within the approximations implicit in 3D
printing, and in the real world at the microscopic and atomic levels*.
I contend that for all practical purposes they are possible, and that
they are certainly no more impossible than objects separated by epsilon
or overlapping by epsilon.
I don't remember: were you one of the people who was arguing that
malformed polyhedra (disconnected faces, et cetera) should be allowed?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discuss