glad to hear it
Bruce
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Tuomas Tolvanen wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Actually I did my comparison just like that, but I just double checked the
> face lists and they match. Thanks!
>
> -Tuomas
>
>
>
> On 09/02/12 16:38, Bruce Fischl wrote:
>> Hi Tuomas
>>
>> the patch face list will
Hi Bruce,
Actually I did my comparison just like that, but I just double checked
the face lists and they match. Thanks!
-Tuomas
On 09/02/12 16:38, Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi Tuomas
>
> the patch face list will be a subset of the full one. Note that because
> faces can be excluded from the patch
Hi Tuomas
the patch face list will be a subset of the full one. Note that because
faces can be excluded from the patch you can't just compare say the 5th
faces in each - you have to look up the index (given in the patch file) and
use that to find the corresponding face in the full surface file.
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for clarifying this. Another question. When comparing lh.sphere
and lh.white face lists they are exactly the same, which makes sense and
only vertice's coordinates differs. Does this apply also for the face
list of the flattened patch? Because I made quick check and most of the
Hi Tuomas
yes, the format of the face list in the ascii file is:
.
.
.
where all the indices are 0-based, and the entries are the 3
vertices that make up that triangular face. Note that *only* the faces and
vertices that have not been removed by cutting are in the patch file.
cheers
Bru
