 | | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Isn't this the same problem we ran into with the twisted wedge bricks a while back? Those gave us problematic conditional lines in addition to the ugly zigzag shading artifacts. (URL) thought the solution was to orient the triangles orthogonal (...) (14 years ago, 18-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Note that I consider this behavior to be a bug in LDView, and as such I will fix it when I get a chance. --Travis (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
