From discussion with Oksana:
The current geometric primitives (spheres, cuboids, cylinders, etc) are abstractions of sets of voxels in a 3D grid. Assuming the voxels are intended to be of equal size in 2 compartments, it should be possible to combine multiple primitives into a single compartment of more complex geometry. For example, combining a sphere and a cylinder.
If it was to be useful, I guess the standard combination operators union, intersection and difference would be used (similar to the same operators in Java2D). Would also need to be able to describe the orientation and offset of the compartments to be composed relative to each other.
As an alternative, allowing specification of a compartment by identifying all the voxels that make it up individually could be a useful (if incredibly tedious) option.
Finally, a means of storing the composition in a kappa file or elsewhere would allow a library of shapes to be built up.
Comments ? Does anyone actually have a need for the feature ?
From discussion with Oksana:
The current geometric primitives (spheres, cuboids, cylinders, etc) are abstractions of sets of voxels in a 3D grid. Assuming the voxels are intended to be of equal size in 2 compartments, it should be possible to combine multiple primitives into a single compartment of more complex geometry. For example, combining a sphere and a cylinder.
If it was to be useful, I guess the standard combination operators union, intersection and difference would be used (similar to the same operators in Java2D). Would also need to be able to describe the orientation and offset of the compartments to be composed relative to each other.
As an alternative, allowing specification of a compartment by identifying all the voxels that make it up individually could be a useful (if incredibly tedious) option.
Finally, a means of storing the composition in a kappa file or elsewhere would allow a library of shapes to be built up.
Comments ? Does anyone actually have a need for the feature ?