| |
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:379efb57.87946213@lugnet.com...
> A few things I noticed/suggestions:
>
> 1. The way you use box4nl, you are drawing a bunch of quads which will
> never be seen. Drop the end-quads from box4nl.
> 2. On the outside frame, butted-construction is not the best way to put
> graphics primitives together. My experience is when areas are 'beveled' • to
> fit together at the corner-points, the results can better handle
> rotation/scaling without visible defects. YMMV.
I have rethought my original decision on both of these.
I realize the end quads will never be seen, but is that a reason to create a
new primitive. Even If I did create a new primitive for the lattices, some
of them would still be embedded in the window frame and never be seen.
I also disagree with 'butted-construction is not the best way to put
graphics primitives together'. I think it is an excellent method and I
haven't seen any defects created by it. In my opinion it is exactly the
same as writing quad lines to cover the same surfaces (there is no overlap
in this part). Scaling and orientation will be applied equally regardless
of how those surfaces are generated, whether they are called from a
primitive file or written directly in the part file.
I think this part meets and exceeds the quality level required for ldraw
parts (for examples see 30044 (render and notice how stud and arch do not
meet around the edges), look these from a blown up over view: 3899, 4528,
and 4529).
I know you have a lot of experience writing parts, and I'm sure you have
seen the defects you described before, but computers have come a long way
and maybe now this is a better way to design parts.
You realize this issue goes far beyond this part. And I think that we as a
community need to discuss this and make a firm decision on whether this is a
quality method for creating parts. Obviously you and I have different views
on this issue and I would like to hear from other part authors.
Thanks,
Adam
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission [DAT]
|
| [discussion cut to lugnet.cad.dev] (...) Yes, I feel it is a reason to change the primitive (by removing two opposing end panels). You can easily add the needed panels to the frame area. (...) But when graphics primitives (in this case, I mean (...) (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
31 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
|
|
|
|
