 | | Re: LDD vs LDraw
|
| (...) While mostly true, I think you're minimizing the utility that a really good 3D view could provide to MLCad. (Note that this isn't meant as a put-down of MLCad; implementing a really good 3D view requires effort that might best be used for (...) (18 years ago, 13-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
| | | | | Re: LDD vs LDraw
|
| (...) Hi Travis, I frequently use LDview during the editing for the reasons you outline above. My point was more in argument against the "zoom and rotation" section of the comment. I would love to have a renderer as good as LDView implemented in (...) (18 years ago, 13-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
| | | | | Re: LDD vs LDraw
|
| (...) Unfortunately this is a tradeoff between quality and speed, if I sorted by triangle it would give better results but would also be much slower to render. There are other options for transparency sorting, like doing a Z init pass or rendering (...) (18 years ago, 13-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: LDD vs LDraw
|
| (...) You might be surprised about the performance. LDView cheats and only sorts the centroids of the transparent triangles, but it does do a brute force sort (via qsort()) of all transparent triangles every frame (assuming you have that option (...) (18 years ago, 14-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: LDD vs LDraw
|
| (...) I don't even keep a copy of the vertices in system memory, I upload them all to the video card and forget about them. It might not be terribly bad to sort the triangles per frame since usually there aren't that many translucent pieces but I (...) (18 years ago, 15-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad)
| |
