CloudCompare forum

It is not clear to me what the problem is exactly, but I would guess that there's one point that has a totally different distance from the rest. This make me thing about a 'limitation' of the C2M that was fixed recently in version 2.13.1 version. Can you test with this new version and report here if...

Voici ce dont on a discuté par email (pour continuer le fil ici): Quelques commentaires : - si c'est plus simple, ou si le trou n'est pas rectangulaire, vous pouvez aussi utiliser l'outil 'ciseaux' (Edit > Segment) qui permet de découper selon un contour - utiliser un mesh (OBJ) aurait l'avantage d'...

So the Connected Components tool uses a simple 'connected components labeling algorithm' applied to a regular grid. And we simply use the cells of the cloud octree considered as a given level of subdivision to convert the cloud to a grid. The octree is a recursive subdivision of the cloud in 8 cubes...

Well, it all depends on the memory your PC have. As long as the individual scans don't contain more than 1.5billion points each, CloudCompare can normally handle them.

Bonjour, Au contraire, a priori si le nuage est assez dense, il vaudrait mieux utiliser l'outil '2.5D Volume ' ( https://www.cloudcompare.org/doc/wiki/index.php/2.5D_Volume ). Celui-ci ne marche qu'avec des nuages. Après il 'suffit' de faire la différence entre les deux nuages, selon une direction p...

See https://github.com/CloudCompare/CloudCo ... .cpp#L9095

I would guess that there's an issue with how the normals are oriented. How have you computed them?

You simply have to check the 'Visible' checkbox in the options:

Yeah, Canupo should work great. What parameters are you using? (maybe you could share a screenshot). Have you used very/too large scales maybe?

Well, I bet that sadly this is a closed proprietary format... I don't have any information about this format.