 | | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) Maybe I'm missing a technical distinction, but it seems he used bounding boxes *for* collision detection, as opposed to using exact volumes. (...) True. My point was, marking up the LDraw part files for volume decomposition would either: a) Be (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) Well, I can have a twisted mind sometimes. I know these moments when the best idea today, will just be plain stupid tomorrow. Thanks to Eric Olson for more precision: he used bounding boxes, not collisions. Also I still think, whereas higher (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) That was only bounding boxes (minus the studs). The piece in question was matched against all other pieces, any pieces in a line above or below were put into a list. In case one of them intersected the piece in question, a new place would be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) So stud4 would be decomposed into 16 trapezoidal prisms? That sounds like a fair amount of mark up. (...) Nod, true. But I'd rather decompose a 1x1 brick into 6 volumes (4 walls, 1 top and the stud) than 46 (one volume for each surface (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) I like the idea of CSG. Unfortunately I can not invest time in Rayshade and alternate ray-tracers. I know they can have attractive features but I am more a POV user. I must impose some limit to my (already too high) diversification. Of course, (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) Stud4 primitive could be convex-decomposed just as Ring4 primitive is today. More generally, just as any LDraw surface is convex-decomposed with just triangles and quads (3,4 points respectively), I guess any LDraw volume can be (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) Sorry, I must have been reading more into your example than you intended. (...) It's the former: the author intends to make a reflected object, but not an inverted object. (...) It depends on who (or what) you want to keep things simple *for*. (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
If you're interested, take a look at my old Rayshade libraries that made the bricks from scratch using CSG. I'm especially fond of the L3G0 40-tooth technic gear. I've thought it would be nice to have "bounding boxes" for the bricks, for collision (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
Maybe I'm more confused now, or less who knows. But I don't think I made what I was trying to say clear in that last post. So here I am replying to myself... :) (...) That last sentance doesn't really get across what I was trying to say I think. (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote: > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Kyle McDonald wrote: > [snip more] > > You understand the usage correctly. Except there's no special tie > between a 'mirroring' subfile reference and the INVERTNEXT command. > Authors won't (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
