 | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 way.
Also, it’s kind of obvious that you and I would be biased on this issue. When
people complain that LDView or ldglite aren’t working right, all we can do right
now is say, “Too bad. There’s nothing I can do to fix it.” If there were an
official policy saying that T-junctions are bad, we could say, “The part needs
to be updated.”
| |
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.
|
That wouldn’t surprise me. Funny how things change.
--Travis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 way.
Also, it’s kind of obvious that you and I would be biased on this issue.
When people complain that LDView or ldglite aren’t working right, all we can
do right now is say, “Too bad. There’s nothing I can do to fix it.” If
there were an official policy saying that T-junctions are bad, we could say,
“The part needs to be updated.”
| |
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.
|
That wouldn’t surprise me. Funny how things change.
|
Heh, I think I found the ASCII art.
I coulda sworn it made it into a FAQ somewhere though. Oh well.
Have fun,
Don
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
Also, it’s kind of obvious that you and I would be biased on this issue.
When people complain that LDView or ldglite aren’t working right, all we can
do right now is say, “Too bad. There’s nothing I can do to fix it.” If
there were an official policy saying that T-junctions are bad, we could say,
“The part needs to be updated.”
|
T-junctions are a quality issue in part files. I don’t think they should be
strictly forbidden (that is, having T-junctions is not a reason to hold a part
file from official release). Generally, I wouldn’t even say that a part with
T-junctions needs a “(Needs Work)” tag. But I will encourage part authors to
avoid T-junctions. It is worth having a few more polygons to avoid the
rendering artifacts.
Sometimes, T-junctions can be avoided without any extra polygons -- it’s a
matter of knowing better ways to lay out polygons to cover a surface.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
T-junctions are a quality issue in part files. I don’t think they should be
strictly forbidden (that is, having T-junctions is not a reason to hold a
part file from official release). Generally, I wouldn’t even say that a part
with T-junctions needs a “(Needs Work)” tag. But I will encourage part
authors to avoid T-junctions. It is worth having a few more polygons to
avoid the rendering artifacts.
|
Sounds reasonable to me.
Any chance a T-junctions FAQ could be created on the parts tracker reference
page, and the above could make it into a policy statement in the parts review
FAQ? Most of my original post here could be used as the FAQ, but the tone is
perhaps too negative if we’re saying that they’re OK to have, but discouraged.
--Travis
| | | | | | |
