surface flattening

[looo]

this way the constructor is happy:

Code: Select all

void FaceUnwrapper_constructor(FaceUnwrapper& instance, pybind11::object face)
{
    if (PyObject_TypeCheck(face.ptr(), &(Part::TopoShapeFacePy::Type)))
    {
        const Part::TopoShapeFacePy* f = static_cast<Part::TopoShapeFacePy*>(face.ptr());
        const TopoDS_Face& myFace = TopoDS::Face(f->getTopoShapePtr()->getShape());
        new (& instance) FaceUnwrapper(myFace);
    }
    else
    {
        throw std::invalid_argument("FaceUnwrapper should be initialized with Part.Face");
    }
}

The exception is translated into a python exception automatically. Hopefully this is acceptable...

[looo]

uv-mesh is setup

uv-mesh.png (85.89 KiB) Viewed 2035 times

problems:
- I can't pass a face which has converted to nurbs (with method face.toNurbs()) because of:

Code: Select all

if (triangulation.IsNull())
      throw std::runtime_error("null triangulation in face construction");

- limitation: the faces must be open nurbs. if not there is no way to find a mapping between unwrapped (2d) and 3d face.

[looo]

- I can't pass a face which has converted to nurbs (with method face.toNurbs())

maybe the reason is the garbage-collector?

while this works:

Code: Select all

import flatmesh

a = App.ActiveDocument.ActiveObject.Shape.Faces[0]
a = a.toNurbs()
g = a.Faces[0]
Part.show(g)
b = flatmesh.FaceUnwrapper(g)

this is not working:

Code: Select all

import flatmesh

a = App.ActiveDocument.ActiveObject.Shape.Faces[0]
a = a.toNurbs()
g = a.Faces[0]
b = flatmesh.FaceUnwrapper(g)

[wmayer]

A shape that has never been visualized may not have a tessellation. In this case you have to invoke the tessellate method to create it.

[looo]

thanks, sounds logical.

Is there a smarter way to copy occ-arrays to eigen?

Code: Select all

    const Poly_Array1OfTriangle &_tris = triangulation->Triangles();
    this->tris.resize(triangulation->NbTriangles(), 3);
    i = 0;
    for (Poly_Triangle _tri: _tris)
    {
        int n1, n2, n3;
        _tri.Get(n1, n2, n3);
        this->tris.row(i) << n1-1, n2-1, n3-1;
        i++;
    }

[tanderson69]

thanks, sounds logical.

Is there a smarter way to copy occ-arrays to eigen?

Code: Select all

    const Poly_Array1OfTriangle &_tris = triangulation->Triangles();
    this->tris.resize(triangulation->NbTriangles(), 3);
    i = 0;
    for (Poly_Triangle _tri: _tris)
    {
        int n1, n2, n3;
        _tri.Get(n1, n2, n3);
        this->tris.row(i) << n1-1, n2-1, n3-1;
        i++;
    }

Smarter? Doesn't this work? There are different ways to do it, but I doubt it will make a difference. Looking at the doc for Poly_triangle, here is what I would do, but I don't think you will notice anything different. https://dev.opencascade.org/doc/refman/ ... angle.html

Code: Select all

    const Poly_Array1OfTriangle &_tris = triangulation->Triangles();
    this->tris.resize(triangulation->NbTriangles(), 3);
    i = 0;
    for (const auto &_tri: _tris) //this won't make a copy of the Poly_Triangle.
    {
        //now that '_tri' is const, the following 'operator()' calls will call the const version
        //eliminating 3 more integer copies.
        this->tris.row(i) << _tri(1) - 1, _tri(2) - 1, _tri(3) - 1;
        i++;
    }

[looo]

Smarter? Doesn't this work?

It works, but yours look better.

I am quite proud, that everything has worked like I have proposed. Even the A * p = v for the flat poles worked... But there is a problem. Using the same nurbs-base will lead to some not so good unwrapped faces.

same_nurbs_base.png (21.27 KiB) Viewed 1983 times

I have already seen this when I computed the derivatives of a nurbs-circle. I expected them to be constant, but actually ds/du is not constant for a nurbs-circle. Or in other words, if a circle is divided into segments with same length, the difference of the u-value of these segments is not constant.

[wmayer]

Example:

Code: Select all

circle=Part.Circle()
circle.Radius=50
nurbs=circle.toNurbs()
nurbs.getWeights() # different weights => rational B-Spline

step=(nurbs.LastParameter-nurbs.FirstParameter)/20
c=Part.Compound([])
for i in range(20):
  c.add(Part.Vertex(nurbs.value(i*step)))

App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Feature","Circle").Shape=circle.toShape()
App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Spline","Nurbs").Shape=nurbs.toShape()
# the arc length is clearly different
App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Feature","Points").Shape=c


spline=circle.toBSpline() # a non-rational B-Spline
App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Spline","Spline").Shape=spline.toShape()
c=Part.Compound([])
for i in range(20):
  c.add(Part.Vertex(spline.value(i*step)))

# the arc length seems to be constant
App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Feature","Points").Shape=c

# all values are equal (within a tolerance)
for i in range(20):
  print (spline.length(i*step, (i+1)*step))


# the points don't have uniform distance
pts=[]
for i in range(21):
  pts.append(nurbs.value(i*step))

# approximate spline
b=Part.BSplineCurve()
b.approximate(Points=pts, ParamType="ChordLength")
App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Spline","b").Shape=b.toShape()

# arc length is almost equal
for i in range(20):
  print (b.length(i/20.0, (i+1)/20.0))

# approximate spline
a=Part.BSplineCurve()
a.approximate(Points=pts, ParamType="Uniform")
App.ActiveDocument.addObject("Part::Spline","a").Shape=a.toShape()

# arc length is clearly different
for i in range(20):
  print (a.length(i/20.0, (i+1)/20.0))

For the splines you can display their control points in the context-menu. I guess that it depends on them if the arc lengths is uniform or not.

See also https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/ ... s-htm.html

[looo]

thanks for the example. I always thought nurbs are the only splines which can model a circle exactly. But non rational B-Splines can do that too? But what Is it a nurbs without weights or a bspline which has non uniform knot vectors?

I had two ideas to solve the shown problem:

1. looking at pictures of rhino [1], it seems the degree of the flat faces is higher. So maybe there is a nurbs-base with a higher degree which can give an exact solution. I think it is possible to find such a nurbs-base which can exactly map some poles to the derivatives of the spline....

2. Another mapping could be introduced. This maps the uv-coordinate on exactly the same uv-boundary, but removes the varying derivatives.

[1]http://docs.mcneel.com/rhino/5/help/en- ... rf-001.png, http://www.rhino3.de/design/modeling/de ... e_Cone.jpg

[wmayer]

thanks for the example. I always thought nurbs are the only splines which can model a circle exactly. But non rational B-Splines can do that too?

No, only real nurbs can model a circle exactly because you need control points with different weights. And this property of different weights is what makes a spline rational. With a non-rational B-Spline you can only approximate a circle which is actually obvious because the base curves are only polynomials.

But what Is it a nurbs without weights

Not without weights but with equal weights. A nurbs with equal weights is a non-rational B-Spline.

or a bspline which has non uniform knot vectors

The knot vector is irrelevant. You can slightly influence the shape of the curve but you can't make it rational or non-rational.