| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Steve Bliss writes:
> Actually, for rounded elements, it's almost always[1] preferable to use
> primitives. That way, programs that do primitives substitution can replace
> the polygonal primitive with a true round object.
Yes, otherwise you get anomalies like this one:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=144769
where the outer ring of the tile got high-quality-ified but the fill in (non
primitive?) circle didn't, leaving gaps. Also the plate below it, since it
has stud cutouts, isn't as "round" as the tile (in this case primitive
substitution was no doubt not posslbe).
This may be the intended effect in this case (because it does look neat,
after all...) but I suspect it would not be in most cases.
Using an all primitive approach, that top circle of the tile should have
been made of several concentric 1 LDU wide rings, right?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) Actually, for rounded elements, it's almost always[1] preferable to use primitives. That way, programs that do primitives substitution can replace the polygonal primitive with a true round object. -- Steve 1) 'almost always' meaning, 'I can't (...) (23 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
