Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> If making everything a mesh, then merging the meshes gives me a good
> result, I am not opposed to going that way.

As a quick guess, I'd expect this approach to be the most performant (though
this doesn't say whether it will be easy to implement). After all, you don't
have to re-assemble your meshes from scratch, but just "weave" them together.

Some nice properties of this approach:

- You don't have to bother about points in the same mesh, except for the few
direct neighbors (which are already known) in this mesh.

- You typically don't even have to bother about many points in the other mesh:
Typically you will already have "weaved in" one or two neighboring points,
which gives you a nice start where to insert the next point into the combined
mesh.

The only tricky thing is where to start, but an algorithm to find *some* pair of
fairly close points should be possible to come up with. Octrees come to my mind
here - or just plain user interaction: Pick any point in mesh A for which you
know that mesh B has points nearby, then just brute-force search through mesh B
for the nearest neighbor. And there you go.


For reducing the sample resolution, one very naive (but possibly sufficient)
approach would be to just search the mesh for any faces (or edges) with an area
(or distance) below a certain threshold, and collapse them to a point.

More sophisticated approaches would of course collapse the smallest ones first,
but maybe that's not even necessary for your purposes.

Post a reply to this message