 | | 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) One thing you should be careful of, though. If you do inline it so that your new sub-part is used and doesn't reference any actual primitives, programs like L3P and LDView can end up displaying things with gaps. Both LDView and L3P perform (...) (22 years ago, 2-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
|
|
(...) 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 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) Actually, for rounded elements, it's almost always[1] preferable to use primitives. That way, programs that do primitives substitution can replace the polygonal primitive with a true round object. -- Steve 1) 'almost always' meaning, 'I can't (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) True. But it's more than nothing. (...) LDraw (and LEdit, I assume) don't cache any files in memory. Read it (line by line), process it, and throw it away. (...) Reducing the number of files may not be important to rendering speed, but it is (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) Yes, otherwise you get anomalies like this one: (URL) the outer ring of the tile got high-quality-ified but the fill in (non primitive?) circle didn't, leaving gaps. Also the plate below it, since it has stud cutouts, isn't as "round" as the (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) There are some complex curved parts (e.g. most of the minifig headwear, the minifig arm I'm working on right now, some wheels) where some regions can be represented by the regular cyli, disc, cyls, cyls2 primitives, but there will be regions (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5 [DAT]
|
|
(...) Very true. In some cases (like the minifig arms), is it better to go with an all-polygon approach, or to use primitives as much as possible and fill in the rest with polygons? (...) When filling in around a hole in a flat surface, one should (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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: 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: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) I wasn't thinking of either, really. I was wondering if maybe the part should be modeled without any primitives at all. I suppose the practical result of that would be primitive-inlining. (...) In the case of the lower arm (forearm), I don't (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: duplicate primitives?
|
|
(...) I'm not *against* such a change, but I'm not a big supporter of it. Maybe if we could revive the old primitives committee (you all know who you are), or if there was another admin for the PT who could oversee this project, that would be a good (...) (22 years ago, 6-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
