Subject:
|
Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:22:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3279 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?
|
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 twice, making them a noticeably different shade.
Here’s an example of a quad overlapping a disc drawn in transparent gray:
--Travis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
