News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: A Polygon Mesh Processing Library by electricslpnsld on Sunday June 02, 2019 @01:29PM (#20076774)
What is the use case of PMP over something like IGL [1]? IGL has a ridiculous number of implemented algorithms -- at this point the second a new paper comes out in the geometry processing community it gets implemented in IGL!

[1] https://libigl.github.io

Re:Show HN: A Polygon Mesh Processing Library by dsieger on Sunday June 02, 2019 @02:27PM (#20077112)
There are a couple of things, actually:

- A proper mesh data structure providing meaningful abstractions

- Support for general polygon meshes

- Support for dynamic connectivity updates

- Cross-compilation to JavaScript, allowing for web-based demos[1] and interactive HTML slides[2]

- Implementations of canonical algorithms as described in the standard textbook of the field (Polygon Mesh Processing[3])

[1] http://www.pmp-library.org/mpview.html

[2] https://pmp-library.github.io/pmp-slides/slides.html

[3] http://www.pmp-book.org

Re:Show HN: A Polygon Mesh Processing Library by huxingyi on Sunday June 02, 2019 @05:52PM (#20078514)
Looks like a really good start. One suggestion: add mesh boolean algorithm, currently, only CGAL do this well, if your library could supports this on the MIT license, I would definitely try it. Currently, I am using libigl to do parameterization and CGAL to do mesh boolean in my 3D modeling software[1]

[1] https://github.com/huxingyi/dust3d

Re:Show HN: A Polygon Mesh Processing Library by dsieger on Monday June 03, 2019 @09:00AM (#20082623)
Thanks for the suggestion, definitely something to think about. However, this is also non-trivial to implement in a robust and efficient manner, so not sure we'll look at this soon.
Re:Show HN: A Polygon Mesh Processing Library by fulafel on Sunday June 02, 2019 @10:55AM (#20075816)
Sounds promising. If authors are reading this: web demo ui is too small on mobile.
Re:Show HN: A Polygon Mesh Processing Library by dsieger on Sunday June 02, 2019 @02:34PM (#20077147)
Co-author here. Good point. So far we did not yet really optimize for mobile. Thanks for the feedback.