Subject:
|
Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Mar 2007 17:30:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4809 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
