Subject:
|
Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:29:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3187 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, William Howard wrote:
> 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.
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 triangle that only overlapped a little bit in each spot that you
currently have the ndis. It would decrease the number of triangles in your part
by 12 and would be just as effective at being sure to not leave any gaps.
--Travis
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
