Subject:
|
Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:12:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3132 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.
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 really does depend on the situation.
Steve
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
