While running the intersecting-pairs algorithm, I noticed something odd. I'm getting the error about how certain pairs are found in brute force that aren't found in tree traversal, and vice-versa. But the odd thing is, the pair not found actually is being found, but the ordering of the triangle ids is different. See here:
and:
These are both from a single run of intersections.exe. This is also just one example, there are many other "unfound pairs" just like this in the same lists, such as (47, 6) and (6, 47), or (8, 16) and (16, 8).
Does this mean that there is something wrong with my implementation, or is this a potential oversight? Because said intersections are the exact same intersections, just with the triangle-ids swapped.
Hello,
While running the intersecting-pairs algorithm, I noticed something odd. I'm getting the error about how certain pairs are found in brute force that aren't found in tree traversal, and vice-versa. But the odd thing is, the pair not found actually is being found, but the ordering of the triangle ids is different. See here:
and:
These are both from a single run of intersections.exe. This is also just one example, there are many other "unfound pairs" just like this in the same lists, such as (47, 6) and (6, 47), or (8, 16) and (16, 8).
Does this mean that there is something wrong with my implementation, or is this a potential oversight? Because said intersections are the exact same intersections, just with the triangle-ids swapped.