Leaderboard

Obviously, this has now become something more than just the search for a solution to a single user’s problem. First of all, I should say that I myself was also reluctant to accept the concept of equidistance advocated by @GP_ and @dexus For the simple reason that applying this principle forced me to accept that the centerline should be the same in these two drawings. Equidistance requires ignoring those areas of the margins that do not geometrically affect the axis. This, which initially caused me some resistance, I eventually came to accept conceptually when I realized that it could serve as a criterion for defining what is a “recodo/inlet” and what is not. So I have abandoned my previous approach and adapted it to this new situation. Having made this clarification, I must say that this concept of equidistance makes the calculation of a centerline more feasible. I’ve been running some tests with Dexus’s latest code, which is the best so far. However, I’ve discovered some “holes” that I hadn’t noticed before. I’m attaching a few images showing this. In my view, these are conceptual errors rather than geometric limitations. And what can we consider “geometric limitations”? I believe that, in any case, every vertex of the centerline must be equidistant from both margins. If this is not the case, the result is not correct. However, the intermediate regions along each segment may be subject to geometric limitations depending on the desired precision. Therefore, in bends or turns, the points taken within the adjustment or “problematic” segments may deviate (within a tolerance) from strict equidistance. The goal, therefore (in my opinion), should be to achieve equidistance at every vertex and to remain within a tolerance in the intermediate zone of each segment. After everything written here so far, some might wonder: is it really possible to obtain a centerline that meets these requirements? As far as I’m concerned, I’m running some tests. GusanoAcad.mp4 I’ll post something over the weekend