Subject:
|
Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:44:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3229 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, William Howard wrote:
> 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? Is any over-lapping (beyond the
> exceptional) a reason to Hold the part?
>
> For example, the 4 primitives used here
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/whoward69/LDraw/parts/primitives/prim-overlap1.jpg
> correctly define the inner and outer edges of the part. But is the use of the
> 4-4ndis (green) acceptable as only a tiny portion (see here
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/whoward69/LDraw/parts/primitives/prim-overlap2.jpg)
> of it is actually required.
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
