 | | Re: Advice on hair pieces
|
|
(...) On the opposite! splitting stupidly into triangles is radical! The method you suggest is much more sophisticated and interesting ;o) (...) Yep. have a look at discussion here: (URL) it would be nice to have a tool to adjust vertices (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Good question! + reduces file size by 50% + 50% less vertices to adjust when building "by hand" + triangles plays havoc with smooth shading (the helical artefact that can be seen here (URL) disappears when triangles are converted to quads. But (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Advice on hair pieces
|
|
(...) I noticed the 4th-batch part I worked on had a significantly better format. That must be why. It was missing some edge lines, but Edger took care of that handily. (...) Heh, I would've thought my idea of a utility was more radical. I'm not (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) I realise this is largely off-topic to the oriinal thread but I've always been curious why the use of quads is encouraged when just about every other format and rendering engine sticks to triangles. So the part author merges triangles into (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Advice on hair pieces
|
|
(...) Actually original parts only have triangles and have been merged by stl2dat (the 4th batch used a different concerter and no triangle to quad merge is done). That said, I had a look at m62696, there are only 5 non-coplanar quads, all within (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
