| |
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 + ring 2 + ring 3) etc.
I wouldn't agree if lets say i had to use always 4 quarter ring primitives
to create a full ring.
Play well
Carsten
> > > > 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.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
