 | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) I'm not a part author, but from a rendering engine author's point of view. Those kind of overlaps can cause very ugly artifacts during rendering, so imho saving a couple of bytes (on harddrives containing 1.000.000.000.000 bytes these days!) (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) I've never really understood that either. Okay, my first computer came with a 16GB hard drive, so yeah, space was pretty cramped then. My second computer came with a 100GB hard drive, but even after I bought that I was still seeing people (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) My first PC had no hard drives, just two 360 kb floppy drives. One for the OS and the other for applications and documents. My second PC had a 10 Mb hard drive that took the physical space of two 5 1/4" drives. The Michelangelo virus took its (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) I doubt that it is anything to do with file size, but more with the time needed to create a "perfect" part. With a very small number of active authors, there should be a compromise between quantity of parts being created and the quality of (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) Oh, we're playing "first PC", eh? My first PC had *no* floppies, just a cassette, until I added a floppy at horrendous expense. 80K capacity each... Foolishly, I bought 2. For the longest time, whatever year it was, a pretty good PC seemed to (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) Ooooh - this can be a fun game. :-) One of my first (sorry, don't remember the order of them) was a computer I built myself. I ordered the 3-chip set from Intel (8080, the clock chip and the buffer chip), then used a bunch of SRAMS (no way (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek (...) Well, when I was young, we didn't have fancy-schmancy comPUters. We had to use rocks for all of our computations. And it took all day to collect enough rocks to multiply 12x12 and our hands would get (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) My third computer had two floppy disk drives holding 113.75KB of data each. This was in 1979. Each drive cost $600. (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) Rocks! Wow you must have been one of the rich kids that I heard about when growing up. We would have killed to have rocks for doing our computations. Our parents would hit us with a switch and use our backsides for doing their fancy adding and (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) You were lucky! We didn't even have skin! All we had was twine to try and keep our entrails in! And they would leak out all over, and parents would beat us to death each night for mussing up the floor! JOHN (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) Was it a digital switch or an analog? (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) I'm replying here in part because your anagramatic names compel me to do so. Anyway, I asked this same basic question a little while back: (URL) given the intervening span of time, I suspect that the prevailing wisdom has changed. However... (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) But that was a long time ago :-) Nowadays we *do* have an awful lot of disk space, and don't really have to squeeze the files. OTOH, every 'unnecessary' byte to read will take time, again and again while rendering, unless the rendering program (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| Indeed: "bad" overlaps (and in particular flase intersections that are bleeding trhough to the site of the part where they are not supposed to be visible) cause disturbingly bad render errors. But on the other hand, "good" overlaps don't generate (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) I'm not worried about disk space so much as I am worried about render/move/edit time. Unnecessary polygons, even after being read in and converted into internal models, take time to process. I think you can see the difference in POVray render (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) I'm used to getting called Ronald by 'new' people all the time. :) (...) Those studs merely touch the surface, that's not going to be a problem. But when two polygons overlap, how their pixels end up onscreen can be frame/driver dependent and (...) (14 years ago, 21-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) Acually, I think you moved it to lugnet.cad, BICBW 8?) ROSCO (14 years ago, 22-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) You, sir, are the cad's meow:-p JOHN (14 years ago, 22-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) Mmm-mmm, Stonehenge was a VERY advanced calculator, for it's time... (14 years ago, 22-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Taking shortcuts
|
| (...) LOL Stonehenge!! Good one, Manfred! I have heard of (URL) Duncan's handiwork> before! :-) JOHN (14 years ago, 26-Jul-10, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
| |
