 | | why re-submit x-4disc files?...
|
|
Steve, According to the header info for these files, they were released in the most recent update. And yet, you've uploaded new versions of them? What's up? (URL) (22 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) Well, it can matter, but isn't likely to in a LDraw renderer. It would matter if the program ever became fill-rate limited, but that usually won't happen, except with very simple models. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) have (...) Are you suggesting that there is (should be) a command to prevent primitive substitution, or that the primitive should be inlined? (...) Agreed. What I was more thinking of is the situation (in the minifig arm) where one region is (...) (22 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: duplicate primitives?
|
|
(...) I think we should move to using the 4-4ringX nomenclature. a) Copy RINGx.DAT (x=1,2,3,4,7) to 4-4RINGx and RING10.DAT to 4-4RIN10.DAT, replacing with ~moved-to files. b) Make the PT reject new submissions that use the old names? c) Automated (...) (22 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: duplicate primitives?
|
|
(...) That makes me feel better, becuase I was the one who submitted those two primitves. We should probably come to some sort of FORMAL decision as to wether to use the old ringX name or move them all into 4-4ringX primitives. (22 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: duplicate primitives?
|
|
(...) Sorry, it was a false alarm. There are no duplicated primitives. AFAIK. Steve (22 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | duplicate primitives?
|
|
(...) ????? Just out of curiousity, what are these two? Thanks, Franklin (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) I understand that. But the question specified that the number of triangles (actually polygons, but feel free to assume triangles) is fixed. (...) So size of the polygons doesn't matter. Hmm. I'll have to remember that. Steve (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) I don't know about all situations (POV, etc), but for real-time rendering in OpenGL, the fastest rendering generally occurs with the fewest number of triangles (assuming that the triangles specify the same final geometry). The fact is that (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. We usually stick with units of 1 because they're the most easily scaled, and most easily implied (ie, if every ring has a n:(n+1) ratio of radii, we don't need to state both radii in the filename). OTOH, boxes have side length (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
