 | | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) If you post a hold vote for all parts contain a overlaping between a primitive and a quad or triangle, you must post a hold vote for all parts with contain a stud (ex : all brick !!!). Because all studs are overlaping with quad or box. It is (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Ahhh. Very good point. I think you'd get problems in povray too. Tim (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) In my other message, I indicated that overlapping polygons will be visible on transparent parts in viewers such as LDView. However, if it is decided that they are ok, it seems to me that you'd be much better off in this instance just using a (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I don't know what the policy is (or if there is one), but I will point out that it will likely cause artifacts in any transparent parts in any viewer that supports blended transparency (such as LDView). The overlapping sections will get drawn (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I have used similar techniques a few times now, and the parts have not been held because of it. As far as rendering, most programs seem to be able to handle it ok, so I don't think it should be a reason to hold the part. ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I've been running into problems with this when designing parts and also when looking at primitive substituted versions of parts featuring parts of circles. In terms of appearance sometimes it would be much better to overlap some primitives or (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
What is the policy on overlapping primitives in a part? Is it OK? Is it frowned upon? Is it accepted as the norm? Is it only accepted under exceptional circumstances? It excessive over-lapping of primitives (or quads/tris) a reason to Hold a part? (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Comment for Admin flag on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) This has been discussed before, at least between Chris and I. Basically, checking the box would generate an email to us admins, and we'd address the issue from there. But I think it would be better to have a checkbox which is wholly separate (...) (18 years ago, 12-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Comment for Admin flag on Parts Tracker
|
|
Would it be useful to add a check-box to the Parts Tracker review page to indicate if the comment indicates need for Admin intervention. eg "Certify - Looking good!" wouldn't have the flag set, but "Certify - please add spaces before the dimensions" (...) (18 years ago, 12-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw SteerCo: Policy update when fixing others parts
|
|
(...) Great idea! Would it be possible to split the PT held list into two - those parts Held less than 3 months and those parts Held great than 3 months (18 years ago, 11-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
