 | | Re: ring 3 to 5 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5 —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5 —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) (23 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | duplicate primitives? —Franklin W. Cain
|
| | | | (...) ????? Just out of curiousity, what are these two? Thanks, Franklin (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: duplicate primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, it was a false alarm. There are no duplicated primitives. AFAIK. Steve (23 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: duplicate primitives? —Mark Kennedy
|
| | | | (...) 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. (23 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: duplicate primitives? —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: duplicate primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 6-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
