Merged
Conversation
…ections when plumb lines pass through vertices
…plane distance from point to prism face when determining closest face
… the point into the plane does not lie within the prism face in question
…line_intersect_update
…culation with no approximations or assumptions about proximity
…in the presence of symmetries (2)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Overhauled the implementation of
intersect_line_segment_with_prism.It now does the full exact calculation with no assumptions about proximity, as those assumptions were causing subtle errors. I understand this may be overkill, but getting it working with the "simplifying" assumption that the point is always close to the prism seems in fact to be more complicated than doing the full calculation. If computational cost becomes an issue we can revisit to investigate accelerations..