 | | Re: Parts Releases and the CA
|
|
(...) I may have missed this, but has LDraw.org released a list of the parts that need to be replaced? I would think that making such a list available and encouraging part authors to focus their efforts on those parts first would speed things up and (...) (18 years ago, 9-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models?
|
|
(...) I found that performance went down somewhat when I copied and pre-translated all the studs too. I could be creating a memory cache penalty. Anyway it is only one matrix multiply per stud (stud is already flattened in itself), which goes onto (...) (18 years ago, 9-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models?
|
|
The thread seems to be splitting from the original point, It is a fact that OpenGL generally places a depth of 16 on any transforms. If an LDRAW model in MPD format was presented to OpenGL as a raw data block I suspect that OpenGL would easily hit (...) (18 years ago, 8-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models?
|
|
(...) Actually on modern cards strips are always slower than optmized lists. You can always try adding degenerate triangles to stitch strips together to save the cost of multiple render calls (too bad PC cards don't support a primitive reset index). (...) (18 years ago, 8-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Maximum depth of ldraw models?
|
|
(...) Well, typically the multiplies that occur for different studs have the same rotation and scaling aspects, the only thing different is the position. So instead of repeating the multiplication on the original matrix, if the top left 3x3 values (...) (18 years ago, 7-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
