| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Kyle McDonald writes:
> 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?
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 primitive's available.
In this case, the best way, if you have a part which has many such rings, is to
create a sub-part for it, then when it's finished, inline the sub-part; or
leave it as a sub-part if the total size is significantly smaller.
If you have a bunch of parts that use it, it may be worth asking to see if
people think it's a candidate for a primitive.
There's no hard limits on when sub-parts should be in-lined, or made into
primitives, so best to ask around to see what people think.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
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
|
|
|
|
