 | | Re: New Primitive: stug8-1.dat - Stud Group 8 x 1 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | (...) Why stug8-1 and stug1-8? These are the same with the exception of rotation. Why not just have one? -Orion (21 years ago, 11-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New Primitive: stug8-1.dat - Stud Group 8 x 1 —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | (...) You can't rotate the 1x8 90 or 270 degrees to get 8x1; stud logo will turn up wrong in hi-q pov renderings. /Tore (21 years ago, 11-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New Primitive: stug8-1.dat - Stud Group 8 x 1 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) Ahh, the old stud logo problem. I won't go there for now. -Orion (21 years ago, 12-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Updated Part: 700.dat - Brick 10 x 20 —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | As an example, this part got a third as large as before with the new group primitives. 0 Brick 10 x 20 0 Name: 700.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Unofficial Updated Part 0 2003-11-12 TE Replaced lots of studs with stug primitives 0 2003-11-12 TE BFC (...) (21 years ago, 12-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Updated Part: 700.dat - Brick 10 x 20 —John Riley
|
| | | | (...) <SNIP> It looks like there could be significant use of stud4 groups as well. I'm also thinking that 1 x n rows of stud2 and stud 3 could be useful. Not as high in demand, but the stud4 groups would be really nice. (The version of 700.dat (...) (21 years ago, 17-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Updated Part: 700.dat - Brick 10 x 20 —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | (...) I've been thinking about groups of stud3 and stud4, but found it not too commonly used as the stud.dat. Baseplates for example have no bottom studs. There is also a little problem with the odd numbers - four top studs corresponds to three (...) (21 years ago, 17-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Updated Part: 700.dat - Brick 10 x 20 —John Riley
|
| | | | (...) Well, that's 3 lines per instance. It takes 3 calls of a group of 4 to get to the same line savings as the group of 8. And 1 x 4 and 2 x 2 groups are common enough to get at least 7 lines saved. In the 700.dat you posted, just using 1 x 4 (...) (21 years ago, 18-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Updated Part: 700.dat - Brick 10 x 20 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) One other thought: every time you add a subfile, it takes time for the renderer to render it. So every call to your 4-stud primitive is going to process more slowly than the equivalent 4 lines encoded directly. So if an added subfile only (...) (21 years ago, 18-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Updated Part: 700.dat - Brick 10 x 20 —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) Actually this might be faster for rendering. If you use a display list (or similar construct) for each subfile you'll be using less display list memory overall, which might lead to faster rendering. If your renderering time is constrained by (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
