 | | 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)
|
