|
|
 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) However, when deciding whether or not to in-line sub-parts, reducing polygon count isn't a consideration. Any other advantage, small or not, should be maximised. (...) Whether they do or not, there's still extra time spent identifying the (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I think it is an extremely small advantage. What programs actually read any file more than once? I mean, Are there programs that actaully open the file and read the part in every time it's referenced? Or are there programs that even if they (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) Sub-parts are handled differently to primitives (from an authoring view point). While primitives are generally not in-lined, sub-parts used during authoring are often in-lined, if it doesn't increase the total file size of the part too much. (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I can see how that wouldn't be desirable. (...) Correct me if I'm wrong (please!) But inlining only replaces the type 1 line with the (transformed) lines from the subfile it referenced. Right? It doesn't mean figuring out if 2 polygons could (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I'm not a mech. eng. major, myself, so my knowledge of this CAD stuff is just from my math. skills. That said... As I understand it, a "primitive" is supposed to be an *atomic* unit, something boiled down to its essentials. A disc/circle (or (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
