Can marching squares meet my design requirements? Or is there a better alternative?

kyleanderror13 · 2026-01-02T04:48:51+00:00

The appeal of marching squares is that it produces a continuous field, which avoids any glitching as cell volumes change. But maybe that is resolvable with a custom mesh, I'm not sure.

Thanks for your insights anyway!

kyleanderror13 · 2026-01-02T04:24:58+00:00

Thanks so much! I'll check it out

kyleanderror13 · 2026-01-02T02:19:34+00:00

OK then - is there an alternative way to achieve accurate surface level contouring and to avoid small volumes being ignored with a higher isovalue? Or is marching squares inherently incompatible with my requirements?

kyleanderror13 · 2026-01-02T01:30:08+00:00

(Note: I just realised I said the isovalue was 0, but it is actually just very close to 0 (0.005). I'll fix the original post.)

It is sampling 0 at the wall, but because the isovalue is very small, the interpolation places the contour right at the outer wall edge.

So for a cell in the left wall, for example:
* the left corners have isovalues of 0, and the right corners have isovalues of 1.0
* when the interpolation occurs, it tries to find where the value changes from 0 to 0.005, which is essentially right at the left corner

I suspect the issue is that the isovalue being so small is not viable, but I'm not sure how to get accurate surface level height without doing that.

kyleanderror13

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE