| |
Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Kyle McDonald writes:
> > 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.
I can see how that wouldn't be desirable.
> 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.
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
be joined into 1 polygon, does it?
If this is so, then inlining of primitives seems to also be
undesirable.
I mean why have primitives at all if they aren't refenced after
the inlining is done? And if you are planning on inling the
primitives in this ring case, then you may as well just write up
the ring yourself with fewer polygons seeing as how you aren't
planning on taking advantage of the primitive files in the end
anyway. Right?
Thanks for showing me the other view points though, I'm still
learning alot of this stuff.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o)
|||||
\\\//
(o o) kmcdonald@BigFoot.COM
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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. (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
