 | | Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
What is the policy on overlapping primitives in a part? Is it OK? Is it frowned upon? Is it accepted as the norm? Is it only accepted under exceptional circumstances? It excessive over-lapping of primitives (or quads/tris) a reason to Hold a part? (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I've been running into problems with this when designing parts and also when looking at primitive substituted versions of parts featuring parts of circles. In terms of appearance sometimes it would be much better to overlap some primitives or (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) I may be misunderstanding you here but if it comes to the difference between a part having less primitives or a part displaying correctly I would always encourage displaying correctly. We don't use the Ldraw system to save computer memory, we (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Travis and Guy have covered the two major issues with overlapped surfaces. As a parts-admin, my view is that while it is better to not overlap surfaces, in some cases the complications required to avoid overlapping are not worth it. So it (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Actually, I believe it will look fine in POV-Ray (although I could be wrong). --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) First of all, you're right about the fact that there's no hole in the surface under studs, and this technically results in incorrect rendering. However, it's not something that people notice. Additionally, the missing hole under studs is (...) (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Just tested and you're right. I guess the way transparency works in povray means you need a gap between the layers to get mix ups. Tim (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
