 | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | |
