|
|
 | | Re: Part x176
|
| (...) Shhhh! We don't [buy] want the masses to realise [more] that ldraw.org is really a [technic] front for a fearfully powerful [lego] money-making machine! (...) Well done! I don't think they suspect anything at all, do you? FUT: .o-t.fun ROSCO (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | duplicate primitives?
|
| (...) ????? Just out of curiousity, what are these two? Thanks, Franklin (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I understand that. But the question specified that the number of triangles (actually polygons, but feel free to assume triangles) is fixed. (...) So size of the polygons doesn't matter. Hmm. I'll have to remember that. Steve (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I don't know about all situations (POV, etc), but for real-time rendering in OpenGL, the fastest rendering generally occurs with the fewest number of triangles (assuming that the triangles specify the same final geometry). The fact is that (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) Not necessarily. We usually stick with units of 1 because they're the most easily scaled, and most easily implied (ie, if every ring has a n:(n+1) ratio of radii, we don't need to state both radii in the filename). OTOH, boxes have side length (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
