I don't think "pair-wise offset" means anything in particular. It's just what Choi and Park titled their paper. Since I can't access that paper, all I know is what the other paper says, which is: Choi and Park achieve a fast algorithm by removing all local invalid loops before the raw offset curve is constructed, but their method is applicable only to polygons without holes [15]. Chen and McMains who wrote the winding number paper think their approach is better, but the description of the Choi and Park method suggests to me something that might be implementable in OpenSCAD. Another observation about the winding number approach: if you implement it in Python then use an efficient polygon intersection method like the Bentley-Ottmann line sweep. On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:01 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar <sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually I am not clear what pair wise offset means . Need to read the > paper you referred to > > On Tue, 5 Sept, 2023, 8:19 am Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > >> I think your understanding of the paper is basically correct. You have >> to draw the raw offset curve in the special way they describe. And of >> course you need to decompose the path into its loops after you find the >> intersections. >> >> With regards to offsetting an edge, it seems that simply adding normal >> edges to produce a polygon will not work because some valid portions of the >> offset may be inside, or too close, to the resulting polygon. Also the >> edge will incorrectly shrink/grow at the endpoints in the direction tangent >> to the starting edge. Maybe I misunderstood something? >> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:02 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> Read the winding number concept. >>> what i understood from this is following: >>> - original loop is ccw (if we don't consider the inner loops for time >>> being) >>> - after offsetting the edges, find global intersections >>> - check clockwise loops and discard them and the remaining will be the >>> offset loop. >>> >>> Will check this weekend how to implement this. >>> >>> for pairwise offset: is this edge offset? >>> In case it is edge offset, the way I do this is by drawing a normal to >>> the edge. >>> e.g. let p0 and p1 are the first and the second points of the edge or >>> line or segment of a loop. >>> vector = p1-p0 or I would call this p01 >>> any normal drawn to the left of the vector will be inside the loop as I >>> draw all the sections ccw. >>> similarly for the right. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 03:41, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Sanjeev, I examined your algorithm and it seems reasonable. I think it >>>> is more robust than my approach, but maybe somewhat slower. (I try to >>>> identify segments that have a valid portion, discard the rest and compute >>>> intersections just of segments adjacent to discarded ones. But the >>>> heuristic for finding valid segments can fail, and I don't handle global >>>> intersections.) There seems to be a lot of literature about this >>>> problem. I was wondering about reference 15 from the paper I listed, Choi, >>>> B., and Park, S., 1999. “A pair-wise offset algorithm for 2D point-sequence >>>> curve”. Computer-Aided Design, 31(12), pp. 735–745, but I can't find a copy >>>> of the paper. Very often these results sound interesting but require >>>> special data structures and won't be efficient in OpenSCAD. Note that the >>>> paper I posted based on the winding number claims that the run time of >>>> their entire offset process is O((n+k)log n) for input with length n and >>>> offset curve containing k intersections. I think this run time may be >>>> achievable in Python, but is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> attached is the offset function calculation steps. >>>>> this works fairly well in most of the cases >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 22:13, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Step 2, to calculate the intersection of segments is n log n via the >>>>>> Bentley-Ottmann (line sweep) algorithm, but it requires a priority queue >>>>>> and binary search tree, which is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>> >>>>>> My implementation doesn't handle global intersections, but the step >>>>>> you write in 6 of "check if any point is inside these shapes" is also >>>>>> quadratic, at least when done naively. >>>>>> >>>>>> The algorithm I described vaguely above involving winding numbers is >>>>>> quite elegant, but I had three problems: 1. cannot work on a path with >>>>>> endpoints, 2. difficult to maintain association between vertices in >>>>>> original and offset polygon, and 3. not efficient in OpenSCAD. I >>>>>> implemented it and is probably more robust, but it was much slower than my >>>>>> existing method. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here's the paper on that algorithm: >>>>>> https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DAC05OffsetPolygon.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> In python I would think you could find libraries already written with >>>>>> efficient algorithms for this stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:14 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is quadratic for sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It needs a separate discussion as per me as this is a complex topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I remember correctly following are the steps >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Original section is divided in to line segments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Each line segment is offset by the amount required and >>>>>>> intersection between 2 adjacent segments are calculated. In case of concave >>>>>>> segments there would not be any intersection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. There could be global intersection of segments apart from the >>>>>>> intersection created in step 2. To calculate this it has to be quadratic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. All the points obtained in step 2 and step 3 to be added in >>>>>>> simple offset of all the original points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. create a rounded shape around each segment of the original >>>>>>> section such that the radius of the round is equal to offset required minus >>>>>>> some very small value like 0.001. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. Now check if any point is inside these rounded shapes and discard >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Balance points needs to be ordered based on the original points . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, this seems to be a complicated process, but I think this is the >>>>>>> simplest way to achieve a offset. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 7:18 pm Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sanjeev, I don't know how you implemented offset, either in python >>>>>>>> or in OpenSCAD, but the problem I have is that checking for invalid >>>>>>>> portions of the path after doing the basic offset becomes a quadratic run >>>>>>>> time task in OpenSCAD. In other languages, it is possible to use clever >>>>>>>> data structures and I think do it in N log N. I saw an algorithm for >>>>>>>> offset that involves doing the basic offset and then keeping only the parts >>>>>>>> of the result that meet a criterion based on winding number, but the >>>>>>>> computation to partition the path into its regions and compute the winding >>>>>>>> number is very slow in OpenSCAD, again because without data structures, >>>>>>>> everything has at least quadratic run time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:32 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have observed the offset function I wrote in openscad was much >>>>>>>>> slower than the offset function written in python. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe the numpy has a lot of support and is faster. So both the >>>>>>>>> methods seem to be almost equally efficient or inefficient, whatever way >>>>>>>>> you want to look at it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> also missed to share that the skeleton of the path extrude method >>>>>>>>> is different from the offset method. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 6.55.06 PM.png] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 18:29, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think that Sanjeev has identified the two main approaches. You >>>>>>>>>> can make a rounded rectangle shape and sweep. That would look like this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> section = rect([Or-Ir,H], rounding=[2,2,0,0],anchor=BOT+LEFT); >>>>>>>>>> path = rect([W,L],rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>> path_sweep(section,path,closed=true); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that I have chosen as the sweep path the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>> rectangle which avoids issues with self-intersection of the sweep. This is >>>>>>>>>> probably the best way to do this in terms of efficiency. Note also that >>>>>>>>>> using turtle() to compute a rounded rectangle is overkill. I only use >>>>>>>>>> turtle() for shapes that are somehow irregular. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev's second approach is to use offsetting. This is possible >>>>>>>>>> using offset_sweep(), but will likely be slower than path_sweep() because >>>>>>>>>> computing offset in userspace is slow. To do this, you have to compute the >>>>>>>>>> outside rounded shape and then subtract the inner rounded shape. So it >>>>>>>>>> could be done like this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> inside = rect([W,L]-(Or-Ir)*[2,2], rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>> outside = rect([W,L], rounding=Or); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> difference(){ >>>>>>>>>> offset_sweep(outside, h=H, top=os_circle(r=2)); >>>>>>>>>> down(1)offset_sweep(inside, h=H+1, >>>>>>>>>> top=os_circle(r=-2),extra=1); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that you could also compute just one of inside and outside >>>>>>>>>> directly and get the other one with offset(). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A third way to make a shape like this is to use rounded_prism(), >>>>>>>>>> again with a difference. However, rounded_prism doesn't make circular >>>>>>>>>> roundings, so the results will be a bit different, and it will not be >>>>>>>>>> possible to assure a uniform width at the corners. (Roundovers here are >>>>>>>>>> continuous curvature beziers. The k parameter controls how gentle the >>>>>>>>>> transition, with a value of .8 close to circular. Smaller k values will >>>>>>>>>> give gentler transitions, but then large joint distance may be desired. >>>>>>>>>> Try changing k to 0.5 to see the difference.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff(){ >>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(rect([W,L]),height=H, joint_top=2, >>>>>>>>>> joint_sides=8,k=.8) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> up(.01)align(TOP,inside=true)rounded_prism(rect([W,L]-[5,5]),height=H+1, >>>>>>>>>> joint_top=-2, joint_sides=6,k=.8); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will explain the process >>>>>>>>>>> I think this is important. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are 2 approaches. >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Extrude a section along a path >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Make a section and offset it multiple times to generate a >>>>>>>>>>> solid. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am sure this explanation is not enough. Will create a visual >>>>>>>>>>> description and send it to you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For approach 2: >>>>>>>>>>> The key is writing a function to offset a section, which I think >>>>>>>>>>> is not so easy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 4:32 pm Bob Roos, <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sanjeev, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It's beautiful, but how did you generate all those >>>>>>>>>>>> points?? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I had to hollow out the part a bit and change the shape some so >>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to find a more generic way to round the edges. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, September 3, 2023, 6:17:54 AM, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> attached file >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 3.45.43 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 06:50, Bob Roos <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello OpenSCAD, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I want the bottom to be straight and the top inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside edges to have 2mm roundover >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include <BOSL2/std.scad> //or screws or threading >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34; >>>>>>>>>>>>> L=60; >>>>>>>>>>>>> H=10; >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or = 8; >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rect_tube(size=[W,L], wall=5, rounding=Or, h=H,irounding=3); >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> have Fun, >>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same name it would just override the built in. On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 11:10, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > I don't think "pair-wise offset" means anything in particular. It's just > what Choi and Park titled their paper. Since I can't access that paper, > all I know is what the other paper says, which is: > > Choi and Park achieve a fast algorithm by > removing all local invalid loops before the raw offset curve is > constructed, but their method is applicable only to polygons > without holes [15]. > > Chen and McMains who wrote the winding number paper think their approach > is better, but the description of the Choi and Park method suggests to me > something that might be implementable in OpenSCAD. > > Another observation about the winding number approach: if you implement it > in Python then use an efficient polygon intersection method like the > Bentley-Ottmann line sweep. > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:01 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < > sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Actually I am not clear what pair wise offset means . Need to read the >> paper you referred to >> >> On Tue, 5 Sept, 2023, 8:19 am Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >> >>> I think your understanding of the paper is basically correct. You have >>> to draw the raw offset curve in the special way they describe. And of >>> course you need to decompose the path into its loops after you find the >>> intersections. >>> >>> With regards to offsetting an edge, it seems that simply adding normal >>> edges to produce a polygon will not work because some valid portions of the >>> offset may be inside, or too close, to the resulting polygon. Also the >>> edge will incorrectly shrink/grow at the endpoints in the direction tangent >>> to the starting edge. Maybe I misunderstood something? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:02 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Adrian, >>>> >>>> Read the winding number concept. >>>> what i understood from this is following: >>>> - original loop is ccw (if we don't consider the inner loops for time >>>> being) >>>> - after offsetting the edges, find global intersections >>>> - check clockwise loops and discard them and the remaining will be the >>>> offset loop. >>>> >>>> Will check this weekend how to implement this. >>>> >>>> for pairwise offset: is this edge offset? >>>> In case it is edge offset, the way I do this is by drawing a normal to >>>> the edge. >>>> e.g. let p0 and p1 are the first and the second points of the edge or >>>> line or segment of a loop. >>>> vector = p1-p0 or I would call this p01 >>>> any normal drawn to the left of the vector will be inside the loop as I >>>> draw all the sections ccw. >>>> similarly for the right. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 03:41, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sanjeev, I examined your algorithm and it seems reasonable. I think >>>>> it is more robust than my approach, but maybe somewhat slower. (I try to >>>>> identify segments that have a valid portion, discard the rest and compute >>>>> intersections just of segments adjacent to discarded ones. But the >>>>> heuristic for finding valid segments can fail, and I don't handle global >>>>> intersections.) There seems to be a lot of literature about this >>>>> problem. I was wondering about reference 15 from the paper I listed, Choi, >>>>> B., and Park, S., 1999. “A pair-wise offset algorithm for 2D point-sequence >>>>> curve”. Computer-Aided Design, 31(12), pp. 735–745, but I can't find a copy >>>>> of the paper. Very often these results sound interesting but require >>>>> special data structures and won't be efficient in OpenSCAD. Note that the >>>>> paper I posted based on the winding number claims that the run time of >>>>> their entire offset process is O((n+k)log n) for input with length n and >>>>> offset curve containing k intersections. I think this run time may be >>>>> achievable in Python, but is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> attached is the offset function calculation steps. >>>>>> this works fairly well in most of the cases >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 22:13, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Step 2, to calculate the intersection of segments is n log n via the >>>>>>> Bentley-Ottmann (line sweep) algorithm, but it requires a priority queue >>>>>>> and binary search tree, which is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My implementation doesn't handle global intersections, but the step >>>>>>> you write in 6 of "check if any point is inside these shapes" is also >>>>>>> quadratic, at least when done naively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The algorithm I described vaguely above involving winding numbers is >>>>>>> quite elegant, but I had three problems: 1. cannot work on a path with >>>>>>> endpoints, 2. difficult to maintain association between vertices in >>>>>>> original and offset polygon, and 3. not efficient in OpenSCAD. I >>>>>>> implemented it and is probably more robust, but it was much slower than my >>>>>>> existing method. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the paper on that algorithm: >>>>>>> https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DAC05OffsetPolygon.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In python I would think you could find libraries already written >>>>>>> with efficient algorithms for this stuff. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:14 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is quadratic for sure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It needs a separate discussion as per me as this is a complex topic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I remember correctly following are the steps >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Original section is divided in to line segments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Each line segment is offset by the amount required and >>>>>>>> intersection between 2 adjacent segments are calculated. In case of concave >>>>>>>> segments there would not be any intersection. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. There could be global intersection of segments apart from the >>>>>>>> intersection created in step 2. To calculate this it has to be quadratic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. All the points obtained in step 2 and step 3 to be added in >>>>>>>> simple offset of all the original points. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5. create a rounded shape around each segment of the original >>>>>>>> section such that the radius of the round is equal to offset required minus >>>>>>>> some very small value like 0.001. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6. Now check if any point is inside these rounded shapes and >>>>>>>> discard it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Balance points needs to be ordered based on the original points . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, this seems to be a complicated process, but I think this is >>>>>>>> the simplest way to achieve a offset. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 7:18 pm Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sanjeev, I don't know how you implemented offset, either in python >>>>>>>>> or in OpenSCAD, but the problem I have is that checking for invalid >>>>>>>>> portions of the path after doing the basic offset becomes a quadratic run >>>>>>>>> time task in OpenSCAD. In other languages, it is possible to use clever >>>>>>>>> data structures and I think do it in N log N. I saw an algorithm for >>>>>>>>> offset that involves doing the basic offset and then keeping only the parts >>>>>>>>> of the result that meet a criterion based on winding number, but the >>>>>>>>> computation to partition the path into its regions and compute the winding >>>>>>>>> number is very slow in OpenSCAD, again because without data structures, >>>>>>>>> everything has at least quadratic run time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:32 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have observed the offset function I wrote in openscad was much >>>>>>>>>> slower than the offset function written in python. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe the numpy has a lot of support and is faster. So both the >>>>>>>>>> methods seem to be almost equally efficient or inefficient, whatever way >>>>>>>>>> you want to look at it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> also missed to share that the skeleton of the path extrude method >>>>>>>>>> is different from the offset method. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 6.55.06 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 18:29, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that Sanjeev has identified the two main approaches. >>>>>>>>>>> You can make a rounded rectangle shape and sweep. That would look like >>>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> section = rect([Or-Ir,H], rounding=[2,2,0,0],anchor=BOT+LEFT); >>>>>>>>>>> path = rect([W,L],rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>> path_sweep(section,path,closed=true); >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note that I have chosen as the sweep path the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>> rectangle which avoids issues with self-intersection of the sweep. This is >>>>>>>>>>> probably the best way to do this in terms of efficiency. Note also that >>>>>>>>>>> using turtle() to compute a rounded rectangle is overkill. I only use >>>>>>>>>>> turtle() for shapes that are somehow irregular. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev's second approach is to use offsetting. This is >>>>>>>>>>> possible using offset_sweep(), but will likely be slower than path_sweep() >>>>>>>>>>> because computing offset in userspace is slow. To do this, you have to >>>>>>>>>>> compute the outside rounded shape and then subtract the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>> shape. So it could be done like this: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> inside = rect([W,L]-(Or-Ir)*[2,2], rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>> outside = rect([W,L], rounding=Or); >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> difference(){ >>>>>>>>>>> offset_sweep(outside, h=H, top=os_circle(r=2)); >>>>>>>>>>> down(1)offset_sweep(inside, h=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>> top=os_circle(r=-2),extra=1); >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note that you could also compute just one of inside and outside >>>>>>>>>>> directly and get the other one with offset(). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A third way to make a shape like this is to use rounded_prism(), >>>>>>>>>>> again with a difference. However, rounded_prism doesn't make circular >>>>>>>>>>> roundings, so the results will be a bit different, and it will not be >>>>>>>>>>> possible to assure a uniform width at the corners. (Roundovers here are >>>>>>>>>>> continuous curvature beziers. The k parameter controls how gentle the >>>>>>>>>>> transition, with a value of .8 close to circular. Smaller k values will >>>>>>>>>>> give gentler transitions, but then large joint distance may be desired. >>>>>>>>>>> Try changing k to 0.5 to see the difference.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff(){ >>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(rect([W,L]),height=H, joint_top=2, >>>>>>>>>>> joint_sides=8,k=.8) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> up(.01)align(TOP,inside=true)rounded_prism(rect([W,L]-[5,5]),height=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>> joint_top=-2, joint_sides=6,k=.8); >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will explain the process >>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is important. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2 approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Extrude a section along a path >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Make a section and offset it multiple times to generate a >>>>>>>>>>>> solid. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure this explanation is not enough. Will create a visual >>>>>>>>>>>> description and send it to you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For approach 2: >>>>>>>>>>>> The key is writing a function to offset a section, which I >>>>>>>>>>>> think is not so easy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 4:32 pm Bob Roos, <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sanjeev, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It's beautiful, but how did you generate all those >>>>>>>>>>>>> points?? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to hollow out the part a bit and change the shape some >>>>>>>>>>>>> so I would like to find a more generic way to round the edges. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, September 3, 2023, 6:17:54 AM, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> attached file >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 3.45.43 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 06:50, Bob Roos <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello OpenSCAD, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want the bottom to be straight and the top inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside edges to have 2mm roundover >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include <BOSL2/std.scad> //or screws or threading >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> L=60; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H=10; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or = 8; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rect_tube(size=[W,L], wall=5, rounding=Or, h=H,irounding=3); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> have Fun, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

Indeed, I think OpenSCAD should probably expose 3D offset as well (even though we don't have good implementation for now, we can use minkowski for now). I am thinking about implementing 3D offset for manifold in a way that does not require convex decomposition. Convex decomposition can decompose a simple part into many components, making it hard to optimize the performance.

Revar made an OpenSCAD pull request that exposes the Clipper library. It has been ignored. On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:40 AM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a > function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested > before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and > I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same > name it would just override the built in. > > On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 11:10, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > >> I don't think "pair-wise offset" means anything in particular. It's just >> what Choi and Park titled their paper. Since I can't access that paper, >> all I know is what the other paper says, which is: >> >> Choi and Park achieve a fast algorithm by >> removing all local invalid loops before the raw offset curve is >> constructed, but their method is applicable only to polygons >> without holes [15]. >> >> Chen and McMains who wrote the winding number paper think their approach >> is better, but the description of the Choi and Park method suggests to me >> something that might be implementable in OpenSCAD. >> >> Another observation about the winding number approach: if you implement >> it in Python then use an efficient polygon intersection method like the >> Bentley-Ottmann line sweep. >> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:01 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Actually I am not clear what pair wise offset means . Need to read the >>> paper you referred to >>> >>> On Tue, 5 Sept, 2023, 8:19 am Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I think your understanding of the paper is basically correct. You have >>>> to draw the raw offset curve in the special way they describe. And of >>>> course you need to decompose the path into its loops after you find the >>>> intersections. >>>> >>>> With regards to offsetting an edge, it seems that simply adding normal >>>> edges to produce a polygon will not work because some valid portions of the >>>> offset may be inside, or too close, to the resulting polygon. Also the >>>> edge will incorrectly shrink/grow at the endpoints in the direction tangent >>>> to the starting edge. Maybe I misunderstood something? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:02 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>> >>>>> Read the winding number concept. >>>>> what i understood from this is following: >>>>> - original loop is ccw (if we don't consider the inner loops for time >>>>> being) >>>>> - after offsetting the edges, find global intersections >>>>> - check clockwise loops and discard them and the remaining will be the >>>>> offset loop. >>>>> >>>>> Will check this weekend how to implement this. >>>>> >>>>> for pairwise offset: is this edge offset? >>>>> In case it is edge offset, the way I do this is by drawing a normal to >>>>> the edge. >>>>> e.g. let p0 and p1 are the first and the second points of the edge or >>>>> line or segment of a loop. >>>>> vector = p1-p0 or I would call this p01 >>>>> any normal drawn to the left of the vector will be inside the loop as >>>>> I draw all the sections ccw. >>>>> similarly for the right. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 03:41, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sanjeev, I examined your algorithm and it seems reasonable. I think >>>>>> it is more robust than my approach, but maybe somewhat slower. (I try to >>>>>> identify segments that have a valid portion, discard the rest and compute >>>>>> intersections just of segments adjacent to discarded ones. But the >>>>>> heuristic for finding valid segments can fail, and I don't handle global >>>>>> intersections.) There seems to be a lot of literature about this >>>>>> problem. I was wondering about reference 15 from the paper I listed, Choi, >>>>>> B., and Park, S., 1999. “A pair-wise offset algorithm for 2D point-sequence >>>>>> curve”. Computer-Aided Design, 31(12), pp. 735–745, but I can't find a copy >>>>>> of the paper. Very often these results sound interesting but require >>>>>> special data structures and won't be efficient in OpenSCAD. Note that the >>>>>> paper I posted based on the winding number claims that the run time of >>>>>> their entire offset process is O((n+k)log n) for input with length n and >>>>>> offset curve containing k intersections. I think this run time may be >>>>>> achievable in Python, but is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> attached is the offset function calculation steps. >>>>>>> this works fairly well in most of the cases >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 22:13, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Step 2, to calculate the intersection of segments is n log n via >>>>>>>> the Bentley-Ottmann (line sweep) algorithm, but it requires a priority >>>>>>>> queue and binary search tree, which is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My implementation doesn't handle global intersections, but the step >>>>>>>> you write in 6 of "check if any point is inside these shapes" is also >>>>>>>> quadratic, at least when done naively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The algorithm I described vaguely above involving winding numbers >>>>>>>> is quite elegant, but I had three problems: 1. cannot work on a path with >>>>>>>> endpoints, 2. difficult to maintain association between vertices in >>>>>>>> original and offset polygon, and 3. not efficient in OpenSCAD. I >>>>>>>> implemented it and is probably more robust, but it was much slower than my >>>>>>>> existing method. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the paper on that algorithm: >>>>>>>> https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DAC05OffsetPolygon.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In python I would think you could find libraries already written >>>>>>>> with efficient algorithms for this stuff. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:14 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is quadratic for sure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It needs a separate discussion as per me as this is a complex >>>>>>>>> topic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly following are the steps >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Original section is divided in to line segments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. Each line segment is offset by the amount required and >>>>>>>>> intersection between 2 adjacent segments are calculated. In case of concave >>>>>>>>> segments there would not be any intersection. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. There could be global intersection of segments apart from the >>>>>>>>> intersection created in step 2. To calculate this it has to be quadratic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 4. All the points obtained in step 2 and step 3 to be added in >>>>>>>>> simple offset of all the original points. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5. create a rounded shape around each segment of the original >>>>>>>>> section such that the radius of the round is equal to offset required minus >>>>>>>>> some very small value like 0.001. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 6. Now check if any point is inside these rounded shapes and >>>>>>>>> discard it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Balance points needs to be ordered based on the original points . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, this seems to be a complicated process, but I think this is >>>>>>>>> the simplest way to achieve a offset. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 7:18 pm Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev, I don't know how you implemented offset, either in >>>>>>>>>> python or in OpenSCAD, but the problem I have is that checking for invalid >>>>>>>>>> portions of the path after doing the basic offset becomes a quadratic run >>>>>>>>>> time task in OpenSCAD. In other languages, it is possible to use clever >>>>>>>>>> data structures and I think do it in N log N. I saw an algorithm for >>>>>>>>>> offset that involves doing the basic offset and then keeping only the parts >>>>>>>>>> of the result that meet a criterion based on winding number, but the >>>>>>>>>> computation to partition the path into its regions and compute the winding >>>>>>>>>> number is very slow in OpenSCAD, again because without data structures, >>>>>>>>>> everything has at least quadratic run time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:32 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have observed the offset function I wrote in openscad was much >>>>>>>>>>> slower than the offset function written in python. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the numpy has a lot of support and is faster. So both the >>>>>>>>>>> methods seem to be almost equally efficient or inefficient, whatever way >>>>>>>>>>> you want to look at it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> also missed to share that the skeleton of the path extrude >>>>>>>>>>> method is different from the offset method. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 6.55.06 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 18:29, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Sanjeev has identified the two main approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>> You can make a rounded rectangle shape and sweep. That would look like >>>>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> section = rect([Or-Ir,H], rounding=[2,2,0,0],anchor=BOT+LEFT); >>>>>>>>>>>> path = rect([W,L],rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>>> path_sweep(section,path,closed=true); >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I have chosen as the sweep path the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>>> rectangle which avoids issues with self-intersection of the sweep. This is >>>>>>>>>>>> probably the best way to do this in terms of efficiency. Note also that >>>>>>>>>>>> using turtle() to compute a rounded rectangle is overkill. I only use >>>>>>>>>>>> turtle() for shapes that are somehow irregular. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev's second approach is to use offsetting. This is >>>>>>>>>>>> possible using offset_sweep(), but will likely be slower than path_sweep() >>>>>>>>>>>> because computing offset in userspace is slow. To do this, you have to >>>>>>>>>>>> compute the outside rounded shape and then subtract the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>>> shape. So it could be done like this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> inside = rect([W,L]-(Or-Ir)*[2,2], rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>>> outside = rect([W,L], rounding=Or); >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> difference(){ >>>>>>>>>>>> offset_sweep(outside, h=H, top=os_circle(r=2)); >>>>>>>>>>>> down(1)offset_sweep(inside, h=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>>> top=os_circle(r=-2),extra=1); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that you could also compute just one of inside and outside >>>>>>>>>>>> directly and get the other one with offset(). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A third way to make a shape like this is to use >>>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(), again with a difference. However, rounded_prism doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> make circular roundings, so the results will be a bit different, and it >>>>>>>>>>>> will not be possible to assure a uniform width at the corners. (Roundovers >>>>>>>>>>>> here are continuous curvature beziers. The k parameter controls how gentle >>>>>>>>>>>> the transition, with a value of .8 close to circular. Smaller k values >>>>>>>>>>>> will give gentler transitions, but then large joint distance may be >>>>>>>>>>>> desired. Try changing k to 0.5 to see the difference.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff(){ >>>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(rect([W,L]),height=H, joint_top=2, >>>>>>>>>>>> joint_sides=8,k=.8) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> up(.01)align(TOP,inside=true)rounded_prism(rect([W,L]-[5,5]),height=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>>> joint_top=-2, joint_sides=6,k=.8); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will explain the process >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2 approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Extrude a section along a path >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Make a section and offset it multiple times to generate a >>>>>>>>>>>>> solid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure this explanation is not enough. Will create a visual >>>>>>>>>>>>> description and send it to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For approach 2: >>>>>>>>>>>>> The key is writing a function to offset a section, which I >>>>>>>>>>>>> think is not so easy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 4:32 pm Bob Roos, <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sanjeev, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It's beautiful, but how did you generate all those >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to hollow out the part a bit and change the shape some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I would like to find a more generic way to round the edges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, September 3, 2023, 6:17:54 AM, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached file >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 3.45.43 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 06:50, Bob Roos <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello OpenSCAD, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want the bottom to be straight and the top inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside edges to have 2mm roundover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include <BOSL2/std.scad> //or screws or threading >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L=60; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H=10; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or = 8; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rect_tube(size=[W,L], wall=5, rounding=Or, h=H,irounding=3); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Fun, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

Why, what is the downside? On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 11:54, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > Revar made an OpenSCAD pull request that exposes the Clipper library. It > has been ignored. > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:40 AM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a >> function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested >> before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and >> I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same >> name it would just override the built in. >> >> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 11:10, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >> >>> I don't think "pair-wise offset" means anything in particular. It's >>> just what Choi and Park titled their paper. Since I can't access that >>> paper, all I know is what the other paper says, which is: >>> >>> Choi and Park achieve a fast algorithm by >>> removing all local invalid loops before the raw offset curve is >>> constructed, but their method is applicable only to polygons >>> without holes [15]. >>> >>> Chen and McMains who wrote the winding number paper think their approach >>> is better, but the description of the Choi and Park method suggests to me >>> something that might be implementable in OpenSCAD. >>> >>> Another observation about the winding number approach: if you implement >>> it in Python then use an efficient polygon intersection method like the >>> Bentley-Ottmann line sweep. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:01 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Actually I am not clear what pair wise offset means . Need to read the >>>> paper you referred to >>>> >>>> On Tue, 5 Sept, 2023, 8:19 am Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think your understanding of the paper is basically correct. You >>>>> have to draw the raw offset curve in the special way they describe. And of >>>>> course you need to decompose the path into its loops after you find the >>>>> intersections. >>>>> >>>>> With regards to offsetting an edge, it seems that simply adding normal >>>>> edges to produce a polygon will not work because some valid portions of the >>>>> offset may be inside, or too close, to the resulting polygon. Also the >>>>> edge will incorrectly shrink/grow at the endpoints in the direction tangent >>>>> to the starting edge. Maybe I misunderstood something? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:02 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>>> >>>>>> Read the winding number concept. >>>>>> what i understood from this is following: >>>>>> - original loop is ccw (if we don't consider the inner loops for time >>>>>> being) >>>>>> - after offsetting the edges, find global intersections >>>>>> - check clockwise loops and discard them and the remaining will be >>>>>> the offset loop. >>>>>> >>>>>> Will check this weekend how to implement this. >>>>>> >>>>>> for pairwise offset: is this edge offset? >>>>>> In case it is edge offset, the way I do this is by drawing a normal >>>>>> to the edge. >>>>>> e.g. let p0 and p1 are the first and the second points of the edge or >>>>>> line or segment of a loop. >>>>>> vector = p1-p0 or I would call this p01 >>>>>> any normal drawn to the left of the vector will be inside the loop as >>>>>> I draw all the sections ccw. >>>>>> similarly for the right. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 03:41, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sanjeev, I examined your algorithm and it seems reasonable. I think >>>>>>> it is more robust than my approach, but maybe somewhat slower. (I try to >>>>>>> identify segments that have a valid portion, discard the rest and compute >>>>>>> intersections just of segments adjacent to discarded ones. But the >>>>>>> heuristic for finding valid segments can fail, and I don't handle global >>>>>>> intersections.) There seems to be a lot of literature about this >>>>>>> problem. I was wondering about reference 15 from the paper I listed, Choi, >>>>>>> B., and Park, S., 1999. “A pair-wise offset algorithm for 2D point-sequence >>>>>>> curve”. Computer-Aided Design, 31(12), pp. 735–745, but I can't find a copy >>>>>>> of the paper. Very often these results sound interesting but require >>>>>>> special data structures and won't be efficient in OpenSCAD. Note that the >>>>>>> paper I posted based on the winding number claims that the run time of >>>>>>> their entire offset process is O((n+k)log n) for input with length n and >>>>>>> offset curve containing k intersections. I think this run time may be >>>>>>> achievable in Python, but is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> attached is the offset function calculation steps. >>>>>>>> this works fairly well in most of the cases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 22:13, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Step 2, to calculate the intersection of segments is n log n via >>>>>>>>> the Bentley-Ottmann (line sweep) algorithm, but it requires a priority >>>>>>>>> queue and binary search tree, which is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My implementation doesn't handle global intersections, but the >>>>>>>>> step you write in 6 of "check if any point is inside these shapes" is also >>>>>>>>> quadratic, at least when done naively. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The algorithm I described vaguely above involving winding numbers >>>>>>>>> is quite elegant, but I had three problems: 1. cannot work on a path with >>>>>>>>> endpoints, 2. difficult to maintain association between vertices in >>>>>>>>> original and offset polygon, and 3. not efficient in OpenSCAD. I >>>>>>>>> implemented it and is probably more robust, but it was much slower than my >>>>>>>>> existing method. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here's the paper on that algorithm: >>>>>>>>> https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DAC05OffsetPolygon.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In python I would think you could find libraries already written >>>>>>>>> with efficient algorithms for this stuff. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:14 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is quadratic for sure. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It needs a separate discussion as per me as this is a complex >>>>>>>>>> topic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly following are the steps >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Original section is divided in to line segments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Each line segment is offset by the amount required and >>>>>>>>>> intersection between 2 adjacent segments are calculated. In case of concave >>>>>>>>>> segments there would not be any intersection. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. There could be global intersection of segments apart from the >>>>>>>>>> intersection created in step 2. To calculate this it has to be quadratic. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. All the points obtained in step 2 and step 3 to be added in >>>>>>>>>> simple offset of all the original points. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 5. create a rounded shape around each segment of the original >>>>>>>>>> section such that the radius of the round is equal to offset required minus >>>>>>>>>> some very small value like 0.001. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 6. Now check if any point is inside these rounded shapes and >>>>>>>>>> discard it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Balance points needs to be ordered based on the original points . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, this seems to be a complicated process, but I think this is >>>>>>>>>> the simplest way to achieve a offset. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 7:18 pm Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev, I don't know how you implemented offset, either in >>>>>>>>>>> python or in OpenSCAD, but the problem I have is that checking for invalid >>>>>>>>>>> portions of the path after doing the basic offset becomes a quadratic run >>>>>>>>>>> time task in OpenSCAD. In other languages, it is possible to use clever >>>>>>>>>>> data structures and I think do it in N log N. I saw an algorithm for >>>>>>>>>>> offset that involves doing the basic offset and then keeping only the parts >>>>>>>>>>> of the result that meet a criterion based on winding number, but the >>>>>>>>>>> computation to partition the path into its regions and compute the winding >>>>>>>>>>> number is very slow in OpenSCAD, again because without data structures, >>>>>>>>>>> everything has at least quadratic run time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:32 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have observed the offset function I wrote in openscad was >>>>>>>>>>>> much slower than the offset function written in python. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the numpy has a lot of support and is faster. So both the >>>>>>>>>>>> methods seem to be almost equally efficient or inefficient, whatever way >>>>>>>>>>>> you want to look at it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> also missed to share that the skeleton of the path extrude >>>>>>>>>>>> method is different from the offset method. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 6.55.06 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 18:29, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Sanjeev has identified the two main approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can make a rounded rectangle shape and sweep. That would look like >>>>>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> section = rect([Or-Ir,H], rounding=[2,2,0,0],anchor=BOT+LEFT); >>>>>>>>>>>>> path = rect([W,L],rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>>>> path_sweep(section,path,closed=true); >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I have chosen as the sweep path the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>>>> rectangle which avoids issues with self-intersection of the sweep. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably the best way to do this in terms of efficiency. Note also that >>>>>>>>>>>>> using turtle() to compute a rounded rectangle is overkill. I only use >>>>>>>>>>>>> turtle() for shapes that are somehow irregular. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev's second approach is to use offsetting. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible using offset_sweep(), but will likely be slower than path_sweep() >>>>>>>>>>>>> because computing offset in userspace is slow. To do this, you have to >>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the outside rounded shape and then subtract the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>>>> shape. So it could be done like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside = rect([W,L]-(Or-Ir)*[2,2], rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside = rect([W,L], rounding=Or); >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference(){ >>>>>>>>>>>>> offset_sweep(outside, h=H, top=os_circle(r=2)); >>>>>>>>>>>>> down(1)offset_sweep(inside, h=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>>>> top=os_circle(r=-2),extra=1); >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that you could also compute just one of inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside directly and get the other one with offset(). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A third way to make a shape like this is to use >>>>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(), again with a difference. However, rounded_prism doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> make circular roundings, so the results will be a bit different, and it >>>>>>>>>>>>> will not be possible to assure a uniform width at the corners. (Roundovers >>>>>>>>>>>>> here are continuous curvature beziers. The k parameter controls how gentle >>>>>>>>>>>>> the transition, with a value of .8 close to circular. Smaller k values >>>>>>>>>>>>> will give gentler transitions, but then large joint distance may be >>>>>>>>>>>>> desired. Try changing k to 0.5 to see the difference.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> diff(){ >>>>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(rect([W,L]),height=H, joint_top=2, >>>>>>>>>>>>> joint_sides=8,k=.8) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> up(.01)align(TOP,inside=true)rounded_prism(rect([W,L]-[5,5]),height=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>>>> joint_top=-2, joint_sides=6,k=.8); >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will explain the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2 approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Extrude a section along a path >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Make a section and offset it multiple times to generate a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure this explanation is not enough. Will create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual description and send it to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For approach 2: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key is writing a function to offset a section, which I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think is not so easy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 4:32 pm Bob Roos, <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sanjeev, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It's beautiful, but how did you generate all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those points?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to hollow out the part a bit and change the shape some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I would like to find a more generic way to round the edges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, September 3, 2023, 6:17:54 AM, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 3.45.43 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 06:50, Bob Roos <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello OpenSCAD, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want the bottom to be straight and the top inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside edges to have 2mm roundover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include <BOSL2/std.scad> //or screws or threading >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L=60; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H=10; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or = 8; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rect_tube(size=[W,L], wall=5, rounding=Or, h=H,irounding=3); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Fun, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

I think the 2D variant is already exposed? https://github.com/openscad/openscad/blob/05b962168cce9bc30b967a19514c490b495bd732/src/geometry/GeometryEvaluator.cc#L557-L582 On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:59 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > Why, what is the downside? > > On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 11:54, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > >> Revar made an OpenSCAD pull request that exposes the Clipper library. It >> has been ignored. >> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:40 AM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a >>> function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested >>> before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and >>> I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same >>> name it would just override the built in. >>> >>> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 11:10, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think "pair-wise offset" means anything in particular. It's >>>> just what Choi and Park titled their paper. Since I can't access that >>>> paper, all I know is what the other paper says, which is: >>>> >>>> Choi and Park achieve a fast algorithm by >>>> removing all local invalid loops before the raw offset curve is >>>> constructed, but their method is applicable only to polygons >>>> without holes [15]. >>>> >>>> Chen and McMains who wrote the winding number paper think their >>>> approach is better, but the description of the Choi and Park method >>>> suggests to me something that might be implementable in OpenSCAD. >>>> >>>> Another observation about the winding number approach: if you implement >>>> it in Python then use an efficient polygon intersection method like the >>>> Bentley-Ottmann line sweep. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:01 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Actually I am not clear what pair wise offset means . Need to read the >>>>> paper you referred to >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Sept, 2023, 8:19 am Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think your understanding of the paper is basically correct. You >>>>>> have to draw the raw offset curve in the special way they describe. And of >>>>>> course you need to decompose the path into its loops after you find the >>>>>> intersections. >>>>>> >>>>>> With regards to offsetting an edge, it seems that simply adding >>>>>> normal edges to produce a polygon will not work because some valid portions >>>>>> of the offset may be inside, or too close, to the resulting polygon. Also >>>>>> the edge will incorrectly shrink/grow at the endpoints in the direction >>>>>> tangent to the starting edge. Maybe I misunderstood something? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 8:02 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Adrian, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read the winding number concept. >>>>>>> what i understood from this is following: >>>>>>> - original loop is ccw (if we don't consider the inner loops for >>>>>>> time being) >>>>>>> - after offsetting the edges, find global intersections >>>>>>> - check clockwise loops and discard them and the remaining will be >>>>>>> the offset loop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will check this weekend how to implement this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for pairwise offset: is this edge offset? >>>>>>> In case it is edge offset, the way I do this is by drawing a normal >>>>>>> to the edge. >>>>>>> e.g. let p0 and p1 are the first and the second points of the edge >>>>>>> or line or segment of a loop. >>>>>>> vector = p1-p0 or I would call this p01 >>>>>>> any normal drawn to the left of the vector will be inside the loop >>>>>>> as I draw all the sections ccw. >>>>>>> similarly for the right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 03:41, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sanjeev, I examined your algorithm and it seems reasonable. I >>>>>>>> think it is more robust than my approach, but maybe somewhat slower. (I >>>>>>>> try to identify segments that have a valid portion, discard the rest and >>>>>>>> compute intersections just of segments adjacent to discarded ones. But the >>>>>>>> heuristic for finding valid segments can fail, and I don't handle global >>>>>>>> intersections.) There seems to be a lot of literature about this >>>>>>>> problem. I was wondering about reference 15 from the paper I listed, Choi, >>>>>>>> B., and Park, S., 1999. “A pair-wise offset algorithm for 2D point-sequence >>>>>>>> curve”. Computer-Aided Design, 31(12), pp. 735–745, but I can't find a copy >>>>>>>> of the paper. Very often these results sound interesting but require >>>>>>>> special data structures and won't be efficient in OpenSCAD. Note that the >>>>>>>> paper I posted based on the winding number claims that the run time of >>>>>>>> their entire offset process is O((n+k)log n) for input with length n and >>>>>>>> offset curve containing k intersections. I think this run time may be >>>>>>>> achievable in Python, but is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> attached is the offset function calculation steps. >>>>>>>>> this works fairly well in most of the cases >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 22:13, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Step 2, to calculate the intersection of segments is n log n via >>>>>>>>>> the Bentley-Ottmann (line sweep) algorithm, but it requires a priority >>>>>>>>>> queue and binary search tree, which is impossible in OpenSCAD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My implementation doesn't handle global intersections, but the >>>>>>>>>> step you write in 6 of "check if any point is inside these shapes" is also >>>>>>>>>> quadratic, at least when done naively. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The algorithm I described vaguely above involving winding numbers >>>>>>>>>> is quite elegant, but I had three problems: 1. cannot work on a path with >>>>>>>>>> endpoints, 2. difficult to maintain association between vertices in >>>>>>>>>> original and offset polygon, and 3. not efficient in OpenSCAD. I >>>>>>>>>> implemented it and is probably more robust, but it was much slower than my >>>>>>>>>> existing method. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the paper on that algorithm: >>>>>>>>>> https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DAC05OffsetPolygon.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In python I would think you could find libraries already written >>>>>>>>>> with efficient algorithms for this stuff. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:14 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is quadratic for sure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It needs a separate discussion as per me as this is a complex >>>>>>>>>>> topic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly following are the steps >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Original section is divided in to line segments. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Each line segment is offset by the amount required and >>>>>>>>>>> intersection between 2 adjacent segments are calculated. In case of concave >>>>>>>>>>> segments there would not be any intersection. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. There could be global intersection of segments apart from the >>>>>>>>>>> intersection created in step 2. To calculate this it has to be quadratic. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 4. All the points obtained in step 2 and step 3 to be added in >>>>>>>>>>> simple offset of all the original points. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 5. create a rounded shape around each segment of the original >>>>>>>>>>> section such that the radius of the round is equal to offset required minus >>>>>>>>>>> some very small value like 0.001. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 6. Now check if any point is inside these rounded shapes and >>>>>>>>>>> discard it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Balance points needs to be ordered based on the original points . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now, this seems to be a complicated process, but I think this is >>>>>>>>>>> the simplest way to achieve a offset. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 7:18 pm Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev, I don't know how you implemented offset, either in >>>>>>>>>>>> python or in OpenSCAD, but the problem I have is that checking for invalid >>>>>>>>>>>> portions of the path after doing the basic offset becomes a quadratic run >>>>>>>>>>>> time task in OpenSCAD. In other languages, it is possible to use clever >>>>>>>>>>>> data structures and I think do it in N log N. I saw an algorithm for >>>>>>>>>>>> offset that involves doing the basic offset and then keeping only the parts >>>>>>>>>>>> of the result that meet a criterion based on winding number, but the >>>>>>>>>>>> computation to partition the path into its regions and compute the winding >>>>>>>>>>>> number is very slow in OpenSCAD, again because without data structures, >>>>>>>>>>>> everything has at least quadratic run time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 9:32 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have observed the offset function I wrote in openscad was >>>>>>>>>>>>> much slower than the offset function written in python. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the numpy has a lot of support and is faster. So both >>>>>>>>>>>>> the methods seem to be almost equally efficient or inefficient, whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>> way you want to look at it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also missed to share that the skeleton of the path extrude >>>>>>>>>>>>> method is different from the offset method. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 6.55.06 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 18:29, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that Sanjeev has identified the two main approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can make a rounded rectangle shape and sweep. That would look like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> section = rect([Or-Ir,H], rounding=[2,2,0,0],anchor=BOT+LEFT); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> path = rect([W,L],rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> path_sweep(section,path,closed=true); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I have chosen as the sweep path the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rectangle which avoids issues with self-intersection of the sweep. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably the best way to do this in terms of efficiency. Note also that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using turtle() to compute a rounded rectangle is overkill. I only use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turtle() for shapes that are somehow irregular. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjeev's second approach is to use offsetting. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible using offset_sweep(), but will likely be slower than path_sweep() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because computing offset in userspace is slow. To do this, you have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the outside rounded shape and then subtract the inner rounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shape. So it could be done like this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside = rect([W,L]-(Or-Ir)*[2,2], rounding=Ir); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside = rect([W,L], rounding=Or); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference(){ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset_sweep(outside, h=H, top=os_circle(r=2)); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> down(1)offset_sweep(inside, h=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> top=os_circle(r=-2),extra=1); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that you could also compute just one of inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside directly and get the other one with offset(). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A third way to make a shape like this is to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(), again with a difference. However, rounded_prism doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make circular roundings, so the results will be a bit different, and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will not be possible to assure a uniform width at the corners. (Roundovers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here are continuous curvature beziers. The k parameter controls how gentle >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the transition, with a value of .8 close to circular. Smaller k values >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will give gentler transitions, but then large joint distance may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> desired. Try changing k to 0.5 to see the difference.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/std.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include<BOSL2/rounding.scad> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $fa=1;$fs=1; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34;L=60;H=10;Or = 8;Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff(){ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rounded_prism(rect([W,L]),height=H, joint_top=2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> joint_sides=8,k=.8) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up(.01)align(TOP,inside=true)rounded_prism(rect([W,L]-[5,5]),height=H+1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> joint_top=-2, joint_sides=6,k=.8); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sanjeev Prabhakar < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sprabhakar2006@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will explain the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is important. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are 2 approaches. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Extrude a section along a path >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Make a section and offset it multiple times to generate a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sure this explanation is not enough. Will create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual description and send it to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For approach 2: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key is writing a function to offset a section, which I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think is not so easy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept, 2023, 4:32 pm Bob Roos, <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sanjeev, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. It's beautiful, but how did you generate all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those points?? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to hollow out the part a bit and change the shape >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some so I would like to find a more generic way to round the edges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sunday, September 3, 2023, 6:17:54 AM, you wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Screenshot 2023-09-03 at 3.45.43 PM.png] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Sept 2023 at 06:50, Bob Roos <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello OpenSCAD, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want the bottom to be straight and the top inside and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside edges to have 2mm roundover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include <BOSL2/std.scad> //or screws or threading >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W=34; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L=60; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H=10; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or = 8; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ir = 3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rect_tube(size=[W,L], wall=5, rounding=Or, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> h=H,irounding=3); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have Fun, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob mailto:roosbob@wybatap.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <roosbob@wybatap.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

On 9/5/2023 3:35 AM, nop head wrote: > Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a > function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested > before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions > and I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with > the same name it would just override the built in. PR#4478 will, among other things, let you render a 2D object into a list of lists of points, which achieves that goal.

As I recall, it was overcomplicating what is supposed to be a simple language. Of course, I’m currently hoping to get this functionality via the far more complicated object/module literals PR. -Revar > On Sep 5, 2023, at 7:59 AM, Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote: > >  >> On 9/5/2023 3:35 AM, nop head wrote: >> Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same name it would just override the built in. > PR#4478 will, among other things, let you render a 2D object into a list of lists of points, which achieves that goal. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org

One issue I see is that many of the uses of an offset() require that you associate points on the offset curve with points on the initial curve. It seems like this information isn't likely to be available, so there will be quick native offset and then some slow, not-entirely-robust algorithm to do association. (Note: my vertex association algorithm is O(N^3), so it's pretty darn slow.) On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:43 PM Revar Desmera <revarbat@gmail.com> wrote: > As I recall, it was overcomplicating what is supposed to be a simple > language. Of course, I’m currently hoping to get this functionality via > the far more complicated object/module literals PR. > > -Revar > > > > On Sep 5, 2023, at 7:59 AM, Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> > wrote: > > > >  > >> On 9/5/2023 3:35 AM, nop head wrote: > >> Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a > function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested > before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and > I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same > name it would just override the built in. > > PR#4478 will, among other things, let you render a 2D object into a list > of lists of points, which achieves that goal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenSCAD mailing list > > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

Sorting and matching offset points based on the distance from the original polygon points is a fairly good way and in most of the cases it works. On Wed, 6 Sept, 2023, 3:19 am Adrian Mariano, <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > One issue I see is that many of the uses of an offset() require that you > associate points on the offset curve with points on the initial curve. It > seems like this information isn't likely to be available, so there will be > quick native offset and then some slow, not-entirely-robust algorithm to do > association. (Note: my vertex association algorithm is O(N^3), so it's > pretty darn slow.) > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:43 PM Revar Desmera <revarbat@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As I recall, it was overcomplicating what is supposed to be a simple >> language. Of course, I’m currently hoping to get this functionality via >> the far more complicated object/module literals PR. >> >> -Revar >> >> >> > On Sep 5, 2023, at 7:59 AM, Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> >> wrote: >> > >> >  >> >> On 9/5/2023 3:35 AM, nop head wrote: >> >> Would be great if OpenSCAD exposed the Clipper offset module as a >> function. It seems very fast and robust. I think it has been requested >> before and all the 2D geometry modules are fast enough to be functions and >> I can't see any downsides. Even if somebody has a function with the same >> name it would just override the built in. >> > PR#4478 will, among other things, let you render a 2D object into a >> list of lists of points, which achieves that goal. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OpenSCAD mailing list >> > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >