 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Don Heyse
|
| | | (...) Well... Technically it is true. The rendering program ought to be able to scan all the points in each part and look for intersections with every edge in the part. Then break up the offensive T-joins automagically and render it perfectly. (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) OK, I stand corrected. Technically a program can fix things a load time. However, you might be surprised at how long it takes. It's "only" O(n^2), but each iteration is slow. You have to search the current line segment against all other line (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) blah, blah, blah, snip Oops, I was trying to be all ironical in a geeky math sorta way. But apparently I failed. Guess I shoulda used more winkies... Do people still use winkies? Or have they gone obsolete like ASCII art? Anyhow, sorry about (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Well actually what txt2dat does is a slightly different problem - it has a few simple closed loops and has to triangulate the complex polygons bounded by them (it uses the excellent (URL) triangle library> to do that). Renderers on the other (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | |
