Subject:
|
Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:54:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4666 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
