CGAL users discussion list

[Peter Hachenberger <>]

So, the robocat took less than 20 seconds on my notebook, which has 2
Ghz with only one Core. So, taking also your other mail into accout, it
seems that your CGAL installation might miss some important data types
and is therefore slower than necessary. Maybe the code I gave you in the
previous mail will not compile, because you don't have Gmp or some
similar problem. 

Peter

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 13:46 -0600, Gilbert Bernstein wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Here is the robocat (3756 vert 7512 tri) model, which I was able to  
> get through in half an hour.  I was running another job along with  
> it, so it may not take that long, though it should take a good while.
> 
> I also tried a simplified shark model (1007 vert 2010 tri) which I  
> just measured at appx. 2 min to convert on my 1.83 Ghz Core Duo (not  
> Core2) (using only one core I believe)
> 
> -- Gilbert
> 
> On Jan 7, 2008, at 6:11 AM, Peter Hachenberger wrote:
> 
> Hi Gilbert,
> 
> half an hour is more than I would expect from a model of that size. I
> have an example file that has about 2/3 of the size of your model and
> the execution of  handling_double_coordinates takes less than half a
> minute. So, I'm a bit surprised. Can you please send me the file so that
> I can test it.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 03:47 -0600, Gilbert Bernstein wrote:
> > It seems I have to apologize for making such a stink here.  It was
> > probably a false alarm.
> >
> > I think I had unreasonable expectations on the speed of the
> > computation and thought the program had gone into a loop.  I managed
> > to push a smaller model (3756 vertices 7512 triangles) through the
> > conversion both ways just now by waiting about half an hour.  I also
> > know the model in question has some very funky joins between parts
> > (lots of long, close, sharp polygons) so I'm pretty sure this was
> > just a matter of patience.  If only I was testing with the teapot.
> > Then I could make a really awful joke about watched teapots.
> >
> > I just ran another model (1007 vert 2010 tri) through just fine, much
> > faster, so yeah...
> >
> > -- Gilbert
> >
> > On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:12 AM, Andreas Fabri wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gilbert,
> >
> > It might be the best to just post a file that makes problems.
> > What is your OS/compiler, did you just take the example or
> > demo program, or write your own program? In the latter case
> > what kernel did you chooses?
> >
> > andreas
> >
> >
> > Gilbert Bernstein wrote:
> >> Andreas,
> >>     I'm fairly sure all of the meshes I've tried are triangular
> >> meshes, (I went back and checked a couple of them (since they're in
> >> ascii) by eye) so I don't think that's the problem.
> >> -- Gilbert
> >> On Jan 7, 2008, at 2:10 AM, Andreas Fabri wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> A typical problem is to have faces which are not triangular,
> >> and at the same time not coplanar.
> >> andreas
> >> Gilbert Bernstein wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>     I'm having an awful lot of trouble successfully building Nef
> >>> Polyhedra from .off input files.  The only model I have
> >>> successfully translated from .off to a Nef Polyhedron and back is
> >>> a cube.  I have tried a number of different models, all supposed
> >>> to be watertight, and which were certified by the
> >>> Polyhedron_3::is_closed() function.  It certainly may be the case
> >>> that there was something off (ba dum chh) about these models, but
> >>> I've reached my point of frustration.  If anyone has any known
> >>> working examples of importing models into the Nef Polyhedron type,
> >>> or any suggestions, I would much appreciate the tips.
> >>> -- Gilbert Bernstein
> > -- 
> > You are currently subscribed to cgal-discuss.
> > To unsubscribe or access the archives, go to
> > https://lists-sop.inria.fr/wws/info/cgal-discuss