 | | Re: Question: polygons filling a t-shape —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Great diagrams, thanks! But I thought that (rgarding quad 2 in the last diagram) collinear points were considered an error by the checkers, so that when you submit your part to parts tracker it would be flagged??? (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question: polygons filling a t-shape —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) I'm not sure if it does or not. After posting the previous post, I realized that I was mistaken about my alternate version being "ok". I just realized that it could result in the same rendering artifacts that using a triangle for polygon 2 (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question: polygons filling a t-shape —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Thanks for pointing this out -- I've been bugged for awhile about the "colinear quads are bad just because L3P says they're bad" situation, here's a very good reason to not use them. Steve (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question: polygons filling a t-shape —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | (...) Yes, L3P detects and warns about the collinear points of the quad. In the case of splitting the T why don't you just use triangles? The renderers do that anyway, but then you can take control of the splitting. I believe quads are mainly a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question: polygons filling a t-shape —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Actually, with LDraw code, reducing triangle pairs to quads reduces that section of code by 35% (more-or-less). If you've got a lot of surfaces, that's not an insignificant savings of bytes. Steve (21 years ago, 5-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
