Subject:
|
Re: *** LDView v0.7 Released ***
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:30:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
580 times
|
| |
|
|
"Rui Martins" <Rui.Martins@link.pt> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.10.10009011607220.6914-100000@is-sv...
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Travis Cobbs wrote:
>
> Well, for usability sake, we should correct what we can, but this is a
> dangerous feature, if we don't issue at least some warnings about it. • Because
> this will lead the authors to get sloppy (please don't take me wrong here, • its a
> Human factor) and even worse, if the autocorrecting software is used to • check
> parts for voting, then a lot of errors may get by us, without beeing
detected.
Good point. I think I'll add an option in LDView to enable/disable
warnings/errors during model loading. I currently just ignore all errors
and problems. Due to the fact that certain problems are debatable, I may
even do fine-grained warning enabling/disabling. In addition to the
outright errors such as missing sub-parts and DAT-file errors, the following
come to mind:
1. Concave quads
2. Non-planar quads
3. Quads with points in criss-cross order (This happens fairly often in the
parts library, and may not be considered a problem. This warning should be
able to be disabled independently of the rest.)
4. Degenerate quads with two or three identical points (should have been a
triangle or line)
5. Degenerate triangles with two identical points (Should have been a line.
I haven't noticed any of these)
6. Degenerate quads, triangles or lines with all points identical (I haven't
noticed any of these.)
I'm not sure #3 above is really a problem, but I do spend a fair number of
CPU cycles detecting and correcting for it, since my solution for detecting
the problem involved checking to see if any of the normals for a quad point
in opposite directions. If anyone has a faster and/or easier way of
detecting this, I'd welcome it. The minifig arms have a particularly large
number of quads with criss-crossed point ordering.
One thing to keep in mind also is that LDView's lack of linetype 5 support
means that it can't currently be used as the only tool to check on parts by
parts authors. Add to that the current color bug which causes the colors to
get wacked out when displaying a part (as opposed to a model) with edge
lines turned on, and hopefully it becomes obvious that LDView should not be
the end-all part verification tool.
In addition, it wasn't really designed with part authors specifically in
mind. L3Lab obviously has a bunch of options designed specifically for
parts authors. I don't currently have any plans to turn LDView into a tool
geared toward parts authors; quite frankly L3Lab does an excellent job of
that already. On the other hand, the lighting model of LDView does make
certain surface imperfections more obvious. If you have multiple triangles
making up a facet which are almost--but not quite--co-planar, it can
sometimes be more obvious in LDView than in the other viewers.
--Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@san.REMOVE.rr.com)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: *** LDView v0.7 Released ***
|
| Travis Cobbs wrote... (...) I have also had second thoughts about the autocorrecting in L3Lab, when it is used for part inspection[1]. L3P and L3Lab share the input routines, which does several corrections. Some corrections are imperative to have (...) (24 years ago, 4-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: *** LDView v0.7 Released ***
|
| (...) Well, for usability sake, we should correct what we can, but this is a dangerous feature, if we don't issue at least some warnings about it. Because this will lead the authors to get sloppy (please don't take me wrong here, its a Human factor) (...) (24 years ago, 1-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
