Subject:
|
Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:31:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3005 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Guy Vivan wrote:
| |
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.
|
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
fundamentally different from two co-planar overlapping polygons. My
understanding was that this thread was about co-planar overlapping polygons.
The rendering problems they introduce are much more likely to be noticed than
polygons which extend across places that should have holes.
| |
It is necessary to make the difference with an excessive
overlapping (bad use of primitive and quad) and a necessary overlapping for
the check returned by the part.
|
I personally would say that, in general, co-planar polygons shouldn’t overlap.
But that’s just my personal opinion.
--Travis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
