 | | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part? —Guy Vivan
| | | | (...) 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? —Timothy Gould
| | | | | | (...) 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 Cobbs
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | |
