 | | Re: Part building advice - too many triangles/quads?
|
|
(...) About 10 times that. Including the optional line subfile the combined size is 1018K. Worth every byte as far as I'm concerned. -Orion (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Hook Coupling 737c01.dat and 444.dat train wheel.
|
|
(...) There are, I believe, efforts ongoing behind the scenes to unify and improve the part number assignment/tracking/allocation process and this is one facet of that. I am not sure the principals in the matter are ready to speak out about it. (...) (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part building advice - too many triangles/quads?
|
|
(...) Lee: I tend to think the same thing. File size is important in that it impacts load times, render times, memory consumption while editing designs and etc., but it's not like there are going to be scads of models (unless someone CADs up a chef (...) (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part building advice - too many triangles/quads?
|
|
(...) The part looks great. As far as file size, I don't think 29.2K is too large at all, especially for a complicated curvy part like this. Others may disagree but I thinl that quality should never be sacrificed for file size concerns. -Orion (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Part building advice - too many triangles/quads?
|
|
I've been working on 6898.dat, the cook's hat, and I think I nearly have a finished part to submit. The hat of course is in reality a more "sculpted" piece without true 8-way symmetry, but I decided for simplicity to make it symmetrical. The bottom (...) (20 years ago, 25-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
