 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
--snip-- (...) Just to be clear it's not the render time I'm worried about... it's the authoring time. Tim (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Much as I'd like to agree on this, I don't think the fact that nobody posted back then disagreeing with my statement really counts as consensus. I pointed out the problem, but didn't ask for opinions on whether parts should be modeled that (...) (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) There are T-junctions there, but the ones that produce the most visible dots are between the white stripe and the moon. Both of those colors are light, so the dark background showing through is much higher contrast, which makes the dots much (...) (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) It's not really constrained to high zoom. If you have a 1% chance of any given pixel along any given T-junction boundary edge resulting in a hole, then you'll have the roughly the same number of holes at any zoom level, since in general the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) This is a really old issue. I think the previous consensus was that (URL) T-Junctions are bad.> Look at the bottom of the message for the comments on T-Junctions. Actually this is such an old issue, I could swear there was an ASCII art (...) (18 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
