-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
PGS_ShapeBoolean.union(PShape, PShape)
returns shape identical to input argument
#62
Comments
Can you certify that the coordinates of the two slice shapes overlap perfectly? I'm guessing this isn't the case somehow. If so, you could put the tiles through Perhaps after having been sliced, the adjacent slices sometimes have very slight differences in their coordinates -- a small gap which means they cannot be unioned. |
PGS_ShapeBoolean.union(PShape, PShape)
returns shape identical to input argument
Thx for your reply! I did try using PGS_Conversion.roundVertexCoords() which seems to help in some cases, making the non-unision more rare, but not completely go away. Just thought i'd share my findings - not shure what to try next... thx anyways! |
Can you share code? |
Closed -- stale. |
Hi,
i have an array of many PShapes created from tiling an initial square repeatedly using PGS_Processing.slice(). Within that array i pick two neigbouring shapes for unision via the PGS_ShapeBoolean.union(PShape,PShape) function. This works like a charm most of the time and returns a PShape that combines the areas of the two input shapes. Sometimes it doesen't want to do so and instead just returns a PShape that is identical to the second input argument of union(PShape,PShape).
What's confusing is that i cannot tell the difference between cases where it works and where it doesnt. The input shapes look valid to me in both cases...
Not shure if this is a bug or if you can point me towards common issues with unision that i should look into...
Thx for a reply and thanks for sharing this awesome library!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: