Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualSik_the_hedgehog

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:51 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to just calculate where the vertices should be, instead of making triangles and rotating them? Then you'd have one vertex in the middle and the vertices in the outside - which you can calculate using sines and cosines (and a multiplication), no need for square root at all.

Unless there's some extra requirement here I'm missing.

EDIT: also that still wouldn't be the optimal solution since you can ditch the middle vertex and just make all the triangles touch one of the vertices in the outside (while also reducing triangle count in the process!), but then it wouldn't be split like pizza slices (which may or may not matter for your project).

#2Sik_the_hedgehog

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:51 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to just calculate where the vertices should be, instead of making triangles and rotating them? Then you'd have one vertex in the middle and the vertices in the borders - which you can calculate using sines and cosines (and a multiplication), no need for square root at all.

Unless there's some extra requirement here I'm missing.

EDIT: also that still wouldn't be the optimal solution since you can ditch the middle vertex and just make all the triangles touch one of the vertices in the borders (while also reducing triangle count in the process!), but then it wouldn't be split like pizza slices (which may or may not matter for your project).

#1Sik_the_hedgehog

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:49 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to just calculate where the vertices should be, instead of making triangles and rotating them? Then you'd have one vertex in the middle and the vertices in the borders - which you can calculate using sines and cosines (and a multiplication), no need for square root at all.

Unless there's some extra requirement here I'm missing.

PARTNERS