Subject:
|
Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:47:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4847 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
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?
|
This is a really old issue. I think the previous consensus was that
T-Junctions are bad. Look at
the bottom of the message for the comments on T-Junctions.
Actually this is such an old issue, I could swear there was an ASCII art
illustration of the problem. But I can’t seem to find that anywhere now.
Have fun,
Don
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) Much as I'd like to agree on this, I don't think the fact that nobody posted back then disagreeing with my statement really counts as consensus. I pointed out the problem, but didn't ask for opinions on whether parts should be modeled that (...) (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
|
|
|
|
