 | | Animal Tail Section end (NEW) —Bernd Broich
|
| | | I tried to reduce the filesize of the x378.dat actual on the tracker is this 98 kB file: (URL) is the new 69.5 kB file. Please tell me which one the better file is. 0 Animal Tail Section End 0 Name: x378a.dat 0 Author: Bernd Broich 0 Unofficial Part (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW) —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | (...) The one on the Tracker is far better. Saving 30% on file size is not worth it for the great degradation in quality. TWS Garrison (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW) —Bernd Broich
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (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)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)) —Bernd Broich
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: Animal Tail Section end (NEW) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
