Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Non-convex Nesting #16

Open
acadbrinkman opened this issue Sep 18, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Non-convex Nesting #16

acadbrinkman opened this issue Sep 18, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@acadbrinkman
Copy link

Hi,

In the readme it is mentioned that non-convex nesting will be added to the library. Do you have any estimation of when this is ready, if you are working on it? If you are not planning to work on it, do you have an estimation on what needs to be added to include the non-convex nesting?

@tamasmeszaros
Copy link
Owner

tamasmeszaros commented Sep 23, 2020

Hi! There is no estimate currently, this heavily depends on the parent project (PrusaSlicer) roadmap. The feature became low priority in the meantime. In fact, I should change the text of the initial readme as it doesn't really reflect the reality anymore.

As to the estimate of time to do it, that is very hard to say even if only I was involved, it would certainly take months of work.
What needs to be added is a robust no-fit polygon algorithm implementation. If you really need that, you might get one from another library like CGAL. I did not test if there is a suitable one and didn't found any open source alternative. The integration with this library would also be non-trivial for a contributor, but achievable by specializing the nfp algorithm templates.

@kallaballa
Copy link

kallaballa commented Sep 11, 2021

I'd like to bring to your attention that I've finally put the necessary work into libnfporb to make it robust. There are still issues remaining: https://github.com/kallaballa/libnfporb/issues but they are rare and not critical. Also floating-point and arbitrary precision both yield the same result in the tests, though that parity might break with a mix of very small and very large geometries.

@tamasmeszaros
Copy link
Owner

Hi @kallaballa ! I'll surely try out integrating the new version. It will take some time for me to get to it though.

@kallaballa
Copy link

Maybe I could do it? Could you provide some hints?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants