 | | File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW))
|
|
(...) I agree with the elimination of excess but I disagree with a reduction in part quality simply because it is "too large" (...) I agree again. The point I was trying to make is size concerns should not be the only reason to redo a quality[1] (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)
|
|
(...) I agree with Thomas (and Orion, I think - although from his post, I'm not sure he looked at your reduced-size file) -- keep the original. If you are concerned about file size, you could try reducing the number of decimal places on your (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)
|
|
(...) I have to strongly disagree with this. If a file can be done just as well with fewer bytes, that's a good thing. Good for downloading, good for maintaining the part, good for storing the parts library. (...) I won't argue with your figures, I (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)
|
|
(...) You are right, that is no longer a problem. And the CPU(s) on any machine should render a 200k file as fast as a 10k file. The only aspect could be the up- and download time. But for a "perfect" part we shouldn't waste a thought on this. CU (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)
|
|
(...) If it's not broke why fix it? I think the one on the PT is just fine. The file size concern have gotten entirly out of hand. Let's do some math: Peeron has 3628 out of 5589 (64%) sets invertoried for a total of 8062 parts (this includes Moved (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
