CGAL users discussion list

[Rob <>]

Pierre,

  Thank you very much for pointing me in this direction.  I've never
used VTK before, and so hadn't thought to conduct that search.  I'd
always assumed it was geared toward volume data, which is why I didn't
think to look.  Upon further inspection, I stumbled across this thread
(http://markmail.org/message/rgq35pb2p66x7nez).  Though this too is a
bit outdated (from 2004), it seems to suggest that obtaining the actual
progressive mesh information, rather than just the decimated mesh, might
be difficult to do.  Either way, I'll look into VTK more to see how
difficult obtaining the list of performed edge collapses might be.  If
not, it seems that CGAL provides all the necessary Euler operations to
perform the decimation myself, in which case I could maintain the
necessary info on the edge collapses and vertex splits.  Would anyone
else using CGAL be interested in an implementation of progressive meshes
(if it turns out not to be patented by Microsoft)?

Cheers,
Rob


Pierre JUILLARD wrote:
> I see however that the publication is a little bit old...
> VTK is now at version 5.2.1
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pierre
>
>
>
> 2009/1/25 Pierre JUILLARD 
> <>
>
>   
>> Ok, so I come back with another suggestion.
>>
>> I had a look on the link you gave me and looked at the movies.
>> It is actually a behaviour of ParaView which you may know (open source
>> software base on VTK for scientific data visualization):
>> http://www.paraview.org/
>>
>> I indeed noticed that when I was making a 3D mesh rotate, such
>> simplifications were carried out (most probably to decrease the CPU load).
>> As this software is based on VTK, I simply typped in Google: "vtk
>> progressive mesh", and I found many results.
>> You should tried.
>>
>> I most notably found this paper (Mesh Decimation Using VTK) which describe
>> the classes in VTK allowing mesh decimation:
>> http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/courses/Seminar/SS2002/Knapp_paper.pdf
>>
>> If you want to have a close look on these classes, I would recommend going
>> to the doxygen documentation:
>> http://www.vtk.org/doc/nightly/html/classes.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>> 2009/1/24 
>> <>
>>
>> Pierre,
>>     
>>>  Thanks for the suggestion, but this is not really what I mean by the term
>>> progressive mesh.  Rather, what I meant was the progressive mesh structure
>>> introduced by Hoppe
>>> (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/hoppe/proj/pm).
>>>  Basically, the
>>> reason I asked on the CGAL discuss list is because it seems like CGAL
>>> takes on
>>> part of the way to implementing this structure.  Namely, they provide the
>>> EdgeCollapsable mesh concept.  I was just curious how difficult it would
>>> be to
>>> implement and properly keep track of the edge collapses and to reintroduce
>>> removed vertices with a vertex split.  I also wanted to see if anyone else
>>> had
>>> done this, as I  see no real use in re-inventing the wheel.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rob
>>> --
>>> You are currently subscribed to cgal-discuss.
>>> To unsubscribe or access the archives, go to
>>> https://lists-sop.inria.fr/wws/info/cgal-discuss
>>>
>>>       
>>