3 ms·

I totally agree! It would have been better to avoid bias by using a pixel/voxel representation (1=material present, 0=no material present), like Airbus did with

I totally agree! It would have been better to avoid bias by using a pixel/voxel representation (1=material present, 0=no material present), like Airbus did with wing structure optimization: https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/138121106/ppnature23911_Aage_ORBIT.pdf https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/138121106... (Not claiming that OP's work isn't absolutely cool, rather suggesting paths for future improvements. :D)

anticristi 6y ago
@matsemann Would you mind sharing your work?
- matsemann 6y ago
  It was discussed here[0] at the time :) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10410813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10410813
matsemann 6y ago
On/off representations are cool, but also a bit harder to work with. One can end up having disjoint groups that don't really make sense, so lots of permutations has to be thrown out. So finding the correct representation can actually be very hard.
- neutronicus 6y ago
  The problem you're describing is kind of dual to the problem with parametrized representations. It's easy to construct parametrized boundary representations (as OP used) that maintain topological invariants, but it's very difficult to use them to explore the space of possible topologies (which would be relevant if OP wanted to say, design a lighter wheel).