|
|
 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| Hello, in this case i would agree tp Franklin's opinion regarding using two ring instead of creating a new primitive because if we create a new primitive section for this you will have very big number of possible combinations (ring 1 +ring 2, ring 1 (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) It's all a compromise (just like life!). If you go creating primitives for every little sub-part that's used a few times, you end up with a primitive directory that's unwieldy & lots of parts which inline because they don't know the (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) As a program author, I believe that yes this would result in twice the polygon count. While I aggree that programs should generally do everything they can to make authoring parts easier, I also think that Part Authors ought to keep in mind (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) Wouldn't that result in twice as many polys that have to be rendered? Forgive if that's a dumb question, I ain't much of an author, you know. :-) (24 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| This isn't necessary. Just use a ring3 and a ring-4, both with the same placement and orientation... (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
