| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Franklin W. Cain writes:
>
> > This isn't necessary. Just use a ring3 and a ring-4, both with the same
> > placement and orientation...
>
>
> 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. :-)
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 that the performance of the programs is a direct
result of the number of polygons that need to be managed.
It's already bad enough, that we can't avoid having many polygons
that represent the insides/sides of bricks that never get drawn
becuase they are snapped on other bricks. Do we really need to go
adding even more by using 2, 4 or more where 1 would do?
I'm new at this so maybe this has been discussed before. Feel
free to fill me in ;)
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o)
|||||
\\\//
(o o) kmcdonald@BigFoot.COM
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
Message is in Reply To:
28 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
|
|
|
|
