Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix incoherent overlap #311

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jun 27, 2022
Merged

Conversation

jcarpent
Copy link
Member

According to the definition of overlap, R0,T0 expressed the placement of the BV b1 and b2 is at the identity.
Consequently, we need either to transfert b1 to the origin or to express b2 in the frame of b1, defined by (R0,T0).

jcarpent and others added 2 commits June 23, 2022 21:11
According to the definition of overlap, R0,T0 expressed the placement of the BV b1 and b2 is at the identity.
Consequently, we need either to transfert b1 to the origin or to express b2 in the frame of b1, defined by (R0,T0).
@jmirabel
Copy link
Contributor

I am very surprised there is such a bug in this part of the code. If that's the case, how is it possible that it did not seem to affect Mesh - Shape results ?

EDIT: Ok, I understand now. There was a discrepancy between the function documentation and the function behavior.

@jmirabel
Copy link
Contributor

It seems you adjusted the code to the documentation, and not the opposite. I am fine with this change but I am surprised you didn't do the opposite.
Is there a reason for this ?

@jcarpent
Copy link
Member Author

I've just aligned wrt the doc and the AABB case.

@jcarpent jcarpent merged commit 92c043f into humanoid-path-planner:devel Jun 27, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants