Subject:
|
Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:35:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5128 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
So, what do you as part authors think? Should T-junctions be avoided in
order to avoid the rendering errors that they can introduce, or should part
authors continue to strive to make parts with the fewest number of polygons
possible?
|
I try to minimise file size whenever possible myself and have nothing against T
juctions. While the gaps can be annoying I feel that they are a fault of the
rendering program rather than the parts.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| (...) I'd really appreciate it if you didn't blame it on the rendering programs. There's really nothing that they can do to fix the problem. I can understand why you might feel that they are at fault, but it really isn't true. As such, you might (...) (18 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
| If you are a part author, I'd appreciate it if you read this post. I know it's long, but it needs to be in order to correctly describe the issue. When looking at one one of the parts in the inaugural Part of the Month contest in LDView (on my work (...) (18 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
