Subject:
|
Re: Hold on primitives by pneaster
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:38:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
513 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, ludo soete wrote:
> I assume that this apply also to parts? Or not, because parts (partsize) won't
> be multiplicated as is with primitives.
> I created the 9V curve 2867.dat with the 'incorrectly' rounding method witch is
> pending in the parts tracker for certification.
I think for parts, you can use either method -- because, as the part
author, you are responsible for making all the vertices match up.
The point with this discussion, is to support using primitives in parts
by creating the primitives in a way that will work cleanly with
'stretched' primitives.
How you get your vertices for polygons and lines in parts isn't as big
an issue.
> > I am still not fully sure about another final rounding.
> > in example; round( r* round( sin( Angle ), 4), 4)
> > This is the current method I am using.
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Anyone else care to comment too?
I'd go with the double-round method, but I'm not sure that it will ever
make a difference. That is, I think that:
round( r* round( sin( Angle ), 4), 4)
will always equal
r* round( sin( Angle ), 4)
Assuming r is an integer.
Steve
--
No FTX was harmed in the making of this message
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hold on primitives by pneaster
|
| (...) I assume that this apply also to parts? Or not, because parts (partsize) won't be multiplicated as is with primitives. I created the 9V curve 2867.dat with the 'incorrectly' rounding method witch is pending in the parts tracker for (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
