Do we need more tetgen options in the gui?

[araex]

Currently we only have the 4 options that where set in the standalone program. Do we need some more configuration?

[petr-henys]

Hi,
i try using the mitk-gem: it works perfectly! GOOD WORK!

1* After some experiments i would suggest to have more control on the boundary and interior mesh because often the boundary mesh needs to capture accurately cortical shell while interior mesh only trabecular volume.

2* Can we mesh a multimaterial volume?

best,

Petr

[ypauchard]

Hi Petr,

Thanks for your feedback. Good to hear the tool is useful to you.

The surface mesh can be adjusted with the MITK Remeshing plugin.
We are currently working on integrating CGAL for volume meshing in addition to tetgen. This might give some more flexibility.

Another way for more advanced meshing needs, is to use an FEM suite for meshing, bring the volume mesh back into MITK-GEM for material mapping is this desired. We hope to have more scripts converting .vtu to FEM format to support this pipeline in the near future.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
Yves

[petr-henys]

Hi Yves, thank you for the fruitful suggestion. A combination of external meshers and possibility to load the mesh back is a great one! Do you plan to add boolean features of CGAL lib. too? It would be handy to have a direct possibility to assemble implant-bone system. Unfortunately, I would like to add some features myself, but I am unable to code in C/C++ on such high level. with best, Petr

…

On 8.2.2017 00:18, Yves wrote: Hi Petr, Thanks for your feedback. Good to hear the tool is useful to you. The surface mesh can be adjusted with the MITK Remeshing plugin. We are currently working on integrating CGAL for volume meshing in addition to tetgen. This might give some more flexibility. Another way for more advanced meshing needs, is to use an FEM suite for meshing, bring the volume mesh back into MITK-GEM for material mapping is this desired. We hope to have more scripts converting .vtu to FEM format to support this pipeline in the near future. I hope this helps. Cheers, Yves — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#8 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AV0qLYYE5sRVeEVxI_tpA6uiStz-6Yi9ks5raPvVgaJpZM4HG4as>.

[araex]

Hi Petr,

With the working CGAL support its certainly possible to add support for the CGAL boolean operations on meshes. I'm interested to hear your use case for it and how you could imagine using such a plugin? If you like you can open an issue with the [enhancement] label here on github describing your idea.

We do however have very little developer time to spare, so absolutely no promises :)

Regards,
Thomas