MESHLAB SOURCE CODE FULL
MESHLAB SOURCE CODE SOFTWARE
MESHLAB SOURCE CODE CODE

Now, how shall this duality be managed? Since Meshes.jl is a fork of GeometryBasics.jl – and looking into its documentation, it seems that there is a lot of great work invested on it, is Meshes.jl meant to be merged back on GeometryBasics.jl in the future? Or maybe it will replace it, and then MeshIO.jl should change its output to Meshes.Mesh?Ĭome join the Julia Zulip chat! Community files and give Meshes.Mesh objects, which Meshes.jl can handle, is that right? But on the other hand, there is MeshIO.jl, which already provides functions to read those files, but their output are GeometryBasics.AbstractMesh objects. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting to create packages that read OBJ, OFF, etc. At the end MeshIO.jl could just depend on these packages to do the basic read with a single load command.

MESHLAB SOURCE CODE FULL

If we could write small packages for specific file formats such as OBJ and OFF similar to PlyIO.jl, then these packages would give the user full flexibility to manipulate the contents of the file. Results look amazing and…Īn implementation will be soon available… It just isn’t part of the culture of the field to share codeĮdit: nice counter-example today on twitter.Research in this field seems often to be done in matlab and so might be perceived to be less directly useful to others than implementations in, say, C++.

MESHLAB SOURCE CODE CODE

Creating robust geometry processing code is hard and there’s direct commercial value for many research outcomes in industry and creative 3D, so the implementation effort is concentrated at companies supporting these markets and less from “hobbyists”.

The research is more aimed at theoretical results than on providing practical tools, partly due to the formal nature of this type of research.

As you’re working in this field would you have insights as to why that is? I can guess, but I don’t really know the true reasons, for example:

In general, it seems not much of the research on geometry processing ends up in packages like CGAL, or is provided (even in research code form) as open-source. However, I could not find much available open-source code, nor of other morphing algorithms. I know there’s been a lot of progress in the field since then, but I only needed something simple and it seemed like a fairly straightforward algorithm to implement and therefore might have a higher chance of already being coded by someone. I recently was looking for an implementation of a mesh morphing algorithm, something like Alexa’s early work. In addition, MeshLab has other tools such as the measurement tool that can measure linearly the distance between the points of a mesh or as the slicing tool that allows to export flat sections of a mesh format SVG: simple but you had to think about it! Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.Our ambitious goal is to provide all the features of the CGAL project in pure Julia.Ī question somewhat related to this quote from your original announcement, which by the way would make me really happy if you manage that goal.

MESHLAB SOURCE CODE SOFTWARE

The variety of import / export formats offered by the software is excellent, moreover the function 'printing' is made in high quality (the rendering can go up to 16k x 16k). For this, it proposes different options of cleaning of the mesh (suppression of the doubles, elimination of the isolated components, coherent unification, automatic filling of the holes, etc.), assembly, smoothing, re-mesh (simplification, subdivision reconstruction of surfaces, etc.), noise suppression and conversion in different formats, which is very convenient. Its main objective is to provide a complete tool for handling and editing 3D models. Developed by ISTI and CNR, MeshLab is an open source 3D mesh processing software.

Meshlab source code