Subject:
|
Re: Colinear Vertices
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:25:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6305 times
|
| |
|
|
> > An example, this button:
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/55968.dat
> > Granted, I rounded condlines to 2 decimal places since I couldn't get smoothing
> > anyway. I did more experiments, with full precision in condline it works:
>
> I played with the settings, and I had to set the precision all the way down to
> 0.133 in order to get it to fully smooth. (0.125 failed to smooth properly.)
I'll need to keep 3 dp in this case. But since it didn't smooth anyway I had no
incentive to enlarge the file...
>
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/cone-prim.dat, but after rounding
> > to 3 dp there is no smoothing between cone sections:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/cone-prim2.dat
>
> The 3 dp version smoothed properly with a precision at .00667 (1 / 150), but not
> .005. I think I'll set the precision to .01, to hopefully give it some leeway.
OK, we'll see if there is downsides to this. Maybe for very small details? Have
a look at some fine mesh parts such as
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/s/33320s01.dat or
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/s/6255s01.dat
>
> I realized while investigating this that there is another problem in my curve
> smoothing that I have always been aware of, but forgot to mention. Smoothing
> between primitives doesn't work when primitive substitution is enabled. There
> are things I may be able to do to fix that, though; I'll investigate the
> performance implications. So while it smooths properly with the precision set
> to 0.01 with primitive substitution disabled, it doesn't smooth properly with
> primitive substitution enabled.
My setup is primitive substitution with level set to one to keep geometry of
circles at 16-polygons. With that setup I see no special issues between
primitives (but maybe I have not paid enough attention). BTW, I use primitive
substitution only because it allows me to use textured studs to check their
orientation. Would it make sense to separate these options?
> > > conditional line, no smoothing will be done. The way that conditional lines are
> > > used in parts ends up making this problem significantly less common than might
> > > be expected.
> >
> > ...though it does happen, and is sometimes hard to avoid in some cases.
> > An exemple (raisonably easy to solve here) is this part:
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=61069
> > I choose to ignore the problem to minimize part complexity:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/61069s011.png
> > Splitting the top quad and adjusting condline length only moves the problem:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/61069s01a1.png
> > For perfect result I had to add a condline between _coplanar_ top quad and
> > triangle: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/61069s01b1.png
>
> You're correct, it does happen. And the part isn't really contrived, since it
> is obviously a real part. Of course, unless I'm misunderstanding, the first
> version also had a T-Junction, which is generally good to avoid ;-). The reason
I was sure you would notice... ;o) but visually the straight line is less
disturbing.
> The above 16-16 pear worked fine with my precision set to 0.01, so hopefully
> that change will help things. On a side note, your BFC for the whole pear (both
> versions) is inverted. You need to change the CCW to CW.
That's not a real part, only a test result of my Pathtruder tool... so BFC is
there only to ensure all facets have the same orientation.
> I'm honestly not sure why .005 isn't cutting it, but I I'll go with .01 for
> LDView 4.0 Beta 2. I'll ask people to keep their eyes peeled for surfaces that
> are smooth when they shouldn't be when using that version.
OK, waiting for it....
> So there's a known large amount of effort needed to implement the new algorithm,
> and no guarantee that it will provide acceptable results, and even less
> guarantee that it will provide better results than the current algorithm.
So I understand very well that you are a bit reluctant to try!!!
Philo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
| (...) Hopefully you have primitive substitution set to two (second notch), since 1 provides 8-sided circular primitives. As for separating the stud logo from the primitive substitution, the logo is an implicit part of the substituted stud. It's not (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
| (...) I played with the settings, and I had to set the precision all the way down to 0.133 in order to get it to fully smooth. (0.125 failed to smooth properly.) (...) .005. I think I'll set the precision to .01, to hopefully give it some leeway. I (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
