Subject:
|
Re: tris vs quads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 May 2005 11:57:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2274 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Ross Crawford wrote:
> I seem to recall this being discussed here before, but I can't find it.
>
> My question is, if I have a surface covered with a large number of triangles (eg
> output from txt2dat), is it better to leave it as triangles, or attempt to
> consolidate as many pairs as possible into quads?
It probably doesn't matter.
Either way, the rendered image should look the same.
Speedwise, most renderers won't care. In fact, I believe that some programs
will split the quads back into triangles in order to render them.
In terms of file size, merging two triangles into one quad reduces size by about
35-40%. The quad uses 4 points, two triangles use 6 -- so you're saving 1/3.
Throw in another 1/3 point savings for the overhead -- the second linetype,
color, linebreak -- that you don't need. So, if you were talking about files to
be added to the official part library, then I would request that you make the
attempt to reduce filesize.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | tris vs quads?
|
| I seem to recall this being discussed here before, but I can't find it. My question is, if I have a surface covered with a large number of triangles (eg output from txt2dat), is it better to leave it as triangles, or attempt to consolidate as many (...) (20 years ago, 2-May-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
