Michael Heidemann Wrote:Ok Ben, now I see your point of view - no. of vertices and fps.
I like your approach very much, but I see difficulties in defining the detail level for each level.
I would prefer a defined storage according file path, because by doing this we do not need to touch the current library in general.
Hi Michael,
I spent a little time today trying to come up with the features I would need to improve framerate in BrickSmith, and I think the scheme I came up with could work equally well with META commands or with a file search path scheme.
In _both_ cases, no change to the library is mandatory - adding lower or higher resolution variants to a part are always optional. I imagine us adding this data tactically for the most used parts or most used primitives.
In both cases, some modification must be made to the current stud.dat vs stu2.dat situation - either by a META command in stud.dat or by copying stu2.dat to a sub-directory.
So I think the work-load on the community would be quite similar.
(Allen asked me if a file search path would be adequate; originally I thought now but now I think it would work well enough.)
cheers
Ben