Subject:
|
Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:42:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
28236 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
| |
There is one more thing to add to Joshua extensive explanations: coplanar
triangle pairs are not assembled into quads. I advocated for that, because
it offers the maximum flexibility when splitting into subparts or adjusting
vertices position (no coplanarity issues). The downside is that you should do
the triangle merging at the end of the cleanup process.
This can be done easily with Rectifier and LETGUI
Philo
|
I realise this is largely off-topic to the oriinal thread but I’ve always been
curious why the use of quads is encouraged when just about every other format
and rendering engine sticks to triangles. So the part author merges triangles
into quads and then whatever software looks at the part undoes the merge.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
| (...) Good question! + reduces file size by 50% + 50% less vertices to adjust when building "by hand" + triangles plays havoc with smooth shading (the helical artefact that can be seen here (URL) disappears when triangles are converted to quads. But (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
| There is one more thing to add to Joshua extensive explanations: coplanar triangle pairs are not assembled into quads. I advocated for that, because it offers the maximum flexibility when splitting into subparts or adjusting vertices position (no (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
