 | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Mark Kennedy wrote:
| |
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?
|
I try to minimise file size whenever possible myself and have nothing
against T juctions. While the gaps can be annoying I feel that they are a
fault of the rendering program rather than the parts.
|
I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t blame it on the rendering programs.
There’s really nothing that they can do to fix the problem. I can understand
why you might feel that they are at fault, but it really isn’t true. As
such, you might want to reconsider your position. (You might not, and that’s
perfectly valid, but if you don’t, hopefully you will at least acknowledge
that the renderers aren’t to blame for the artifacts; the T-junctions in the
part files are to blame.)
--Travis
|
Arguably it’s probably the algorithms and/or numerical proccessing that are at
fault. Certainly when you design scientific code algorithms they should usually
be created in such a way that it minimises numerical error. Of course I don’t
expect the authors of viewing software to redesign/rewrite/overwrite the inbuilt
alogrithms of the GPUs or emulators but there is no such thing as an intractable
problem [1]
Tim
[1] Well there probably are but they’d be highly obscure creations designed
purely to be intractable.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
there is no such thing as
an intractable problem
|
There is, however, such a thing as an impractical problem ;)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
there is no such thing as
an intractable problem
|
There is, however, such a thing as an impractical problem ;)
ROSCO
|
No there’s not. I’m a physicist... not an engineer ;)
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Something else to consider is that T junctions will often appear in model files
themselves between two parts as shown in this simple example.
0 Model exported from LeoCAD
0 Original name:
1 4 20.00 -24.00 30.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3001.DAT
1 4 60.00 0.00 30.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3001.DAT
1 4 -20.00 0.00 30.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3001.DAT
0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Mark Kennedy wrote:
| |
Something else to consider is that T junctions will often appear in model
files themselves between two parts
|
Yes, that’s true, but in such cases there are generally lines separating the
polygons (parts), and people expect to see those in the render. The problem
we’re talking about here is artifacts showing up on the faces of individual
parts where people don’t expect them.
ROSCO
| | | | | | |
