| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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. :-)
I'm not a mech. eng. major, myself, so my knowledge of this CAD stuff
is just from my math. skills. That said...
As I understand it, a "primitive" is supposed to be an *atomic* unit,
something boiled down to its essentials. A disc/circle (or 1/n fraction
thereof), a cylinder (or 1/n fraction), a rectangle, a triangle, (etc.).
With the ring primitives, they have all been expressed in terms of
"inner radius", with the outer radius always being "inner rad. plus one".
I believe that this is the implicit "standard". (Steve?) While I'm
not discouraging the creation of new primitives, I do believe that
any new primitive should be in accordance with these underlying principles.
Thanks,
Franklin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
