| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > Sure, reducing polygon count is good, but it doesn't necessarily require a
> > new primitive or sub-part to do that. In the case of this new ring
> > primitive, unless it's needed by several parts, it's probably better to have
> > it in-line in the part(s). The solution of using the existing ring
> > primitives is an option, to avoid having to calculate the ring co-ordinates,
> > but is probably not the preferred option.
>
> 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 think of any exceptions, but I'll allow
> for the possibility'. :)
There are some complex curved parts (e.g. most of the minifig headwear, the
minifig arm I'm working on right now, some wheels) where some regions can be
represented by the regular cyli, disc, cyls, cyls2 primitives, but there will
be regions that no amount of twisting or stretching can handle - and these have
do be done as polygons, and cannot be substituted. Then there will be gaps !
Also, where any rectilinear region intersects with a curved region the
intersection edge should be different when rendered with the 16-agon
primitives, to when rendered with substituted "true" curved surfaces. Such
support is generally not written into the DAT file.
From a primitive inventory management perspective, I'd prefer authors to use
combinations of rings, rather than generate a plethora of inner/outer diameter
combinations - particularly where they do not demand an overlap as in this
case. IMHO overlapping rings are OK in patterns, but not for main part
structure, where the part _may_ exist (now or future) in a trans colour.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ring 3 to 5 [DAT]
|
| (...) Very true. In some cases (like the minifig arms), is it better to go with an all-polygon approach, or to use primitives as much as possible and fill in the rest with polygons? (...) When filling in around a hole in a flat surface, one should (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
