![]() ![]() My goal is to run TSP on path planning for parts. If you are interested in getting your hands dirty, we could work together in 15.04 legacy branch to optimize travel path. Thus, it is a bad idea.Įarly optimization is the root of all evils. If you still groups by 4, you won't gain any performance. But what if I have a many core GPU or even a grid of computer where tens of thousand of core are available. It is reasonable to group the threads by 4. The reason is that one machine may have only 4 cores. One should not group or schedule ahead in algorithm. ![]() ![]() But the initialization of the starting point of parts (including wall and infill) could impact tool path planning, which it may not be taken care properly.Īfter all Cura is open source, you could do whatever you want with your ideas.Įdited by you ignore starting point and end point among layers, the slicing problem above is called embarrassingly parallel problem. I haven't figured out the end point of layer yet. In fact, if you choose infill first, the layer starting point should always be inside the infill. To your question, the actual starting point of the layer is determined by the printing order of infill and wall. That's what I'm working on to improve it. (It is not an ideal way for path planning optimization. The starting point of each layer is determined by the z-seam option and your hard coded setting of ' layer_start_x' and 'layer_start_y'īut this only impact how parts (a.k.a island) get sorted. If you use 3.x Cura, each layer is sliced independently in parallel fashion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |