Subject:
|
Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:00:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4739 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
So, what do you as part authors think? Should T-junctions be avoided in
order to avoid the rendering errors that they can introduce, or should part
authors continue to strive to make parts with the fewest number of polygons
possible?
--Travis
|
It’s possible that by setting up meshes POVray can largely avoid the problem as
it rotates points and then joins them. My opinion is that Part Authors should
stick to keeping the polygon count down rather than jumping through hoops to try
to avoid a problem which I suspect is fairly rare and not that important (it’s
only likely to be a problem at high-zoom).
Tim
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) It's not really constrained to high zoom. If you have a 1% chance of any given pixel along any given T-junction boundary edge resulting in a hole, then you'll have the roughly the same number of holes at any zoom level, since in general the (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| If you are a part author, I'd appreciate it if you read this post. I know it's long, but it needs to be in order to correctly describe the issue. When looking at one one of the parts in the inaugural Part of the Month contest in LDView (on my work (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
