Timeline for Regular vs. Irregular Vertices in a Mesh
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2010 at 14:33 | history | edited | sleepless in beantown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected LaTeX errors
|
| Sep 18, 2010 at 22:52 | history | edited | sleepless in beantown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added comments about trade offs and tetrahedra
|
| Sep 18, 2010 at 22:47 | comment | added | sleepless in beantown | @Nima, I would think that "better" has to be defined by your ultimate goal. If the numerical precision of the simulator will blow up with slim triangles (for example, triangles with one angle of less than 5 degrees), then it's better to accept irregular vertices. If the simulation would perform better (faster, fewer errors, etc.) with regular and similar vertex connectivity, then allow the irregular triangles and banish irregular nonconforming vertices. There is always a trade-off to make: precision vs. computational time; computational complexity vs.fidelity to the physical object, etc. | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 5:06 | comment | added | Nima | Thanks for your explanations. I am wondering if we have an arbitrary mesh with some irregular vertices, let's say vertices of degree 12, 15, ..., is there any benefit in doing a remeshing which reduces the variance of the vertice's degrees? Because there are some existing remeshing papers in Computer Graphics that try to remove high valence vertices. Now, I wonder which one is better? 1. a mesh with some irregular vertices but good looking triangles. 2. a remeshing of that mesh with less irregular vertices but with very slim and weird triangles. | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 4:37 | history | answered | sleepless in beantown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |