To compare CMS with EMC and DC quantitatively, we performed the following experiment. Three tetrahedra are generated randomly in a limited space and their union is used as the input model. We first use a tetrahedron to compare the performance of marching cubes, extended marching cubes, dual contouring and our method. The top row of the following figures shows the resulting surfaces of these algorithms and the bottom row shows close-up views for a single cell. Here, we use a uniform grid and only compare their performance on preserving sharp features and maintaining consistent topology. The original marching cubes algorithm does not preserve sharp features. Except for CMS, these methods do not take topology into account, Hence, there are holes and cracks in the extracted surfaces. The original marching cubes algorithm does not preserve sharp features. Except for CMS, these methods do not take topology into account, Hence, there are holes and cracks in the extracted surfaces in figure. |