 | | Re: File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW))
|
|
(...) I agree. If I would reduce the decimal points the size would be reduced by 20k but then I get a lot of not coplanar vertices so that these needs to be split (increeses size) or have to store with the numbers. But the neighbour vertices needed (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: 3035p01.dat - confirmation, it exists!
|
|
(...) Yes it does exist. It was factory painted to match the wing. It's from set 310. I have a picture of that set MIB showing both parts with red edge paint. Gary Istok also mentions it: (URL) to me is the years Gary mentioned. The plate you (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New Part: 3036p01.dat - Plate 6 x 8 with Red Side [DAT]
|
|
Must be from set 310. (URL) Plate 6 x 8 with Red Side 0 Name: 3036p01.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Author: James Jessiman (Original LDraw Part) 0 BFC CERTIFY CW 1 16 60 4 40 1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 stud4.dat 1 16 40 4 40 1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 stud4.dat 1 (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New Part: 3035p01.dat - Please confirm that it exists! [DAT]
|
|
Could be somebody painted the red side to fit in with the rounded "wing" from some gas station set? But I think it's real. 0 Plate 4 x 8 with Red Side 0 Name: 3035p01.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Author: James Jessiman (Original LDraw Part) 0 BFC (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW))
|
|
(snip) I think you're both right. I am reminded of a quote: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Albert Einstein You're both geniuses too, you know. :-) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
