CloudCompare forum

Yes, you can rename the scalar fields between various runs of the M3C2 plugin (so that they are not overwritten).

Else if you really have multiple clouds (with the same point positions?) then you can also use the tool 'interpolate SF from another entity'. But mind that you will also have to rename ...

Yes, it's the last bootleg / rip-off version of CC that doesn't comply with the GPL license (see https://www.cloudcompare.org/release/notes/20240214/ at the end).

They never replied to my mails :|

Here is a fixed version: https://www.cloudcompare.org/release/Cl ... up_x64.exe

(sadly, it's a non-signed version as I have some issues with my certificate - you'll have to convince Windows that it's safe to run)

Can you test this new version: https://www.cloudcompare.org/release/Cl ... up_x64.exe

(sadly it's not signed with a certificate, so you may have to convince Windows that it's safe to run)

Ah, it must have been managed by the Mesh I/O plugin then. This plugin was not compiling with Qt 6 anymore, but I managed to fix it I think (I haven't been able to test).

Hum, I like when Apple makes the life of developers harder for no good reason.

I feel this issue should be reported on github instead, so that the persons supporting the macOS version (Paul and Romain) will see it. They don't come often (or at all) on the forum!

If you manage to find the right parameters maybe?

Yes, this format is not supported by CloudCompare. That's not an 'issue' per se ;)

So I would still choose the 'space' method, which guarantees that there's no pair of points that are closer from each other than the set distance. It's a kind of low pass filter on the density. So you should find a value that's large enough, that no area will be 'too dense', but some areas might ...

So you mean that you don't get the convex hull when using 0 as parameter? You get instead the result in your screenshot? That's definitely not intended.

Just in case, have you tried with the latest 2.14.beta version?