FS#2693 - Modify > Breakout: Fails on re-generating partial ellipse-arcs.
Follow up of  FS#2685  
Tested with 3.23.4 trial on Win 7 but probably not related to OS
With the example file attached to the related forum topic p48576 
D2 fails for the lower left ellipse in magenta indicating the segment near (11.72, 2.58).
ShapeAlgorithms.getIntersectingShapes() locates 8 intersecting shapes ...
... That is not the issue here.
ShapeAlgorithms.autoSplit() for the given position returns 3 new segments:
(address may vary)
- [0] REllipse(RShape(address: "0x204229d0"), startPoint: "RVector(11.675918, 2.746654, 0.000000, 1)", endPoint: "RVector(11.977686, 2.428095, 0.000000, 1)", center: "RVector(11.852689, 2.644595, 0.000000, 1)", majorPoint: "RVector(-0.124996, 0.216500, 0.000000, 1)", majorRadius: 0.249993, minorRadius: 0.144334, ratio: 0.57735, startAngle: 45, endAngle: 180, full: false, clockwise: true) - [1] Undefined - [2] REllipse(RShape(address: "0x204239c0"), startPoint: "RVector(11.675918, 2.746654, 0.000000, 1)", endPoint: "RVector(11.977686, 2.428095, 0.000000, 1)", center: "RVector(11.852689, 2.644595, 0.000000, 1)", majorPoint: "RVector(-0.124996, 0.216500, 0.000000, 1)", majorRadius: 0.249993, minorRadius: 0.144334, ratio: 0.57735, startAngle: 45, endAngle: 180, full: false, clockwise: false)
The issue is that the new entities are only (re-)generated when longer than RS.PointTolerance (Good practice).
The approximated Simpson-length for the ellipse-arcs are:
- [0 CW] **NaN** (instead about 0.683800238925154) - [1] Not an RShape - [2 CCW] 0.5773502691896258
Ellipse-arcs [0] starts at 45°, passes 0° in CW sense and ends at (-)180°.
The full ellipse is removed but not replaced by new segment [0] or [1].
Segment [2] is the segment that is broken out.
Similar new segment lengths for the segment near (12.02, 2.49):
- [0 CW] **NaN** (instead about 1.12960650667804213) - [1] Not an RShape - [2 CCW] 0.13154400143673767
 Regards,
CVH
 
 
	
Issue is related to FS#2565 "NaN length for arbitrary ellipse arc"
In the comment is explained why.
Regards,
CVH