Subject:
|
File Size Concerns ( Was Re: Animal Tail Section end (NEW))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:30:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1782 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > The file size concerns have gotten entirly out of hand.
>
> 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 agree with the elimination of excess but I disagree with a reduction in part
quality simply because it is "too large"
> > ... Therefore the amount addded in
> > new files is 550 MB and total including current files is (550 + 35.3) 585.3 MB.
>
> I won't argue with your figures, I think 585MB is a reasonable estimate.
>
> > If 585.3 MB is too large for your hard drive then it's time to get a new hard
> > drive. The current price on Pricewatch for a 20GB hard drive is $32 US which
> > isn't very much even for a teenager mowing lawns for a living.
> >
> > If bandwidth is your concern, we can get around that by sending you a copy of
> > the library on CD.
>
> That's all true, but it's more convenient -- for everyone -- to have a smaller
> library that is easier to store and transmit. There are any number of reasons that
> people can't/won't upgrade.
>
> Add to this the fact that bloated[1] part files are frequently due to underuse of
> primitives, overuse of decimals places, etc. There is definitely a case for keeping
> an eye on the size of files, and looking more closely at files that are overly 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] part. The size of a part should be
secondary to achieving a faithful reproduction of the part.
-Orion
--
[1] Quality in this context means error free and ready for certification
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
