MeshLib vs Rhino 3D comparison results
As in other comparison rounds with other contestants, our setup was as follows: Windows 11, Intel Core i7-12700H processor, 32GB of RAM, NVIDIA RTX 3060m with 6GB of VRAM.
In case you want to verify our outcomes or run your own test on another setup, feel free to find our input models (as well as the resulting Boolean files) here.
Both options succeeded totally in the first three rounds. However, it took MeshLib much less time to accomplish the task. This is a serious advantage if you plan to execute 3D Mesh Boolean operations at scale on intricate meshes.
Also, MeshLib rose to the occasion in terms of copying, while Rhino froze. Finally, when it came to copying a mesh with deliberately added noise, MeshLib handled it as well (though, it took extra time to execute all needed computations).
While both contestants, us and Rhino 3D, did the job, MeshLib proved itself to be a much speedier alternative.
Simple Objects Case
One with a hole aside from our intersection part.
One with a hole into our intersection part
One with self-intersections into our meshes’ intersection part.
When you need to work on holed and intersected meshes, or when self-intersections must be handled without preliminary mesh healing, your choice is Rhino 3D. When your tasks revolve around holed but not intersected models, you can stay with MeshLib (which, by the way, actually excels at mesh repair).
* MeshLib does not handle non-manifold meshes. Instead, it will automatically convert them into manifold structures.
** The outcomes in this case might be unpredictable. Meshes with issues like self-intersections and geometric anomalies can be generated.