Well… It kinda depends. If I were to be ordering stock to recreate the branch or even if I were making a covering for the branch. I’d have to order at least 6 inches of material to cut down.
So I think it matters most how you are intending to use it.
That’s not how it works with soft bodies though, method B represents potential useable length when pointing down. It’s only distorted because it’s pointing up. For rigid bodies, I’d agree.
Method A on account that that would be the maximum usable length
As a skilled carpenter who’s used to measuring wood, this is the only answer.
I’m interested in your wood measuring services.
… For a friend
Well… It kinda depends. If I were to be ordering stock to recreate the branch or even if I were making a covering for the branch. I’d have to order at least 6 inches of material to cut down.
So I think it matters most how you are intending to use it.
Oh you’re a skilled carpenter? How much wood have you cut in your time
Half as much as they have measured, is my guess.
THIS ia getting philosophical… i mean, first of all, things don’t need to be cut perfectly in half every time they’re cut.
But then your answer is probably an estimate/approximation.
HOWEVER… when you cut one piece of wood into two, is not 100% of the wood cut into?
So either this carpenter measures 50% of his wood aimlessly, or you, sir, are a LIAR
I believe they were alluding to “measure twice, cut once”
🫠 I concede
This isn’t about measuring it so wrong that the number gets larger than it sheuld be?
Measure twice, cut once
Usable length is relative…
*reverse cowgirl enters the room, galloping backwards and surprising everyone*
That’s not how it works with soft bodies though, method B represents potential useable length when pointing down. It’s only distorted because it’s pointing up. For rigid bodies, I’d agree.
Nobody cares how long the limp branches are.
Nobodies talking about the limp branches, soft and rigid bodies are a physics term and they don’t mean what you think they do.
So… Non rigid?