You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have various types that have a .Transform or .Transformed method (e.g. Box3d, Plane3d, Hull3d, Polygon3d, ...). In most cases, there is only an overload for Trafo3d. We should complete this and make sure there are overloads for Trafo3d, M44d, Similarity3d, Rigid3d, Euclidean3d and review the same for 2d data types.
We might also want to consider adding .InvTransform/InvTransformed methods. This might have a slightly better performance compared to passing the inverted versions of the transform types. This should be evaluated first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've added more transformation methods for Polygon2d or Polygon3d. There are now in-place and inverse variants. The latter seem to be a bit more efficient than computing the inverse transformation first. I'm not sure yet if all of these variants make sense for other types. E.g. do you really need to be able to transform a Box2d in place?
We have various types that have a
.Transform
or.Transformed
method (e.g. Box3d, Plane3d, Hull3d, Polygon3d, ...). In most cases, there is only an overload for Trafo3d. We should complete this and make sure there are overloads for Trafo3d, M44d, Similarity3d, Rigid3d, Euclidean3d and review the same for 2d data types.We might also want to consider adding .InvTransform/InvTransformed methods. This might have a slightly better performance compared to passing the inverted versions of the transform types. This should be evaluated first.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: