abdullah wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:27 am
Au contraire, solver stability is well taken into account in the overall discussion. This kind of bug reports help me to have a broad view of the possible edges. The broad view has resulted in a package of improvements that has just been merged. I really hope you will find a better overall behaviour there.
Thanks for nice words about the bug report.
Then I do not understand the discussion. I cannot find anything about false positives for redundant constrains detection. About solver stability I only found the following.
1a. 2017-02-03 22:46 (in tracker) Chukharev: 1. Try to slightly randomly displace points and rerun the solver...
1b. Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:35 pm Chukharev: A possible way to somwhat improve the solver stability might be trying to reiterate with a small random displacement of points.
2. Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:45 am DeepSOIC: Unacceptable. This will cause creep with underconstrained sketches (typically, those are hand-tweaked sketches).
3. Sun May 04, 2014 6:16 pm abdullah: a) Change the solver edge tangency constraint to another expression that does not show the behaviour, if such alternative expression exists => (probability of happening under 1/1000).
4. Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:35 pm Chukharev (to DeepSOIC): Out of curiosity, do you have an example, how an under-constrained sketch can be accepted by the solver if the re-iteration is only applied to over-constrained sketches?
It's very good if this little discussion leads to solver stability being well taken into account. No sarcasm, I really mean it, it is good! Thank you for explaining my misunderstanding. And surely it'a a pity that no solution to the false positive was yet found...