 | | Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW)
|
|
(...) 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))
|
|
(...) 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))
|
|
(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))
|
|
(...) 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)
|
