On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 13:06 -0800, Colin D Bennett wrote:
That suits me just fine.. OpenGL _likes_ rendering triangles, and any
other geometry primitives are extra work to implement ;)
But wouldn't support for higher-level shapes be superior to triangle
meshes for high-quality renderings (e.g., raytracing, etc.)? Is the
goal for PCB 3D support intended to be primarily for high-quality
renderings or for real-time viewing of and interaction with the 3D
scene?
Primarily for the latter (at the moment). I imagine your component
design workflow is:
"Proper" 3D CAD (e.g.<insert cad program here>) -----
or |
|
3D graphics (e.g. Blender) |
|
| |
| |
\|/ |
|
Export VRML / Collada / ... for PCB's library |
\|/
|
| Export CAD constraints, case etc..
\|/
|
Design board using PCB<----------------------------
| |
| -----> Emit rendering description in graphics friendly format ---
\|/ |
|
Emit board shape / component placement as CAD data in "some" format |
|
| \|/
| Render board in graphics app.
\|/ povtrace / blender?
Model board in CAD, design casing around it / whatever
I'm coming round to the idea that 3D is more than just eye candy if we
do it nicely. It helps visualise component placement and layout issues
far more readily than just looking at flat layers can do. Your brain may
spot issues it wouldn't otherwise.
I have also spoken to design professionals who value the ability to emit
3D renderings, however rough, as it allows better communication of
project progress and design ideas to clients, who may not themselves be
technical. (Think.. your manager??)
triangle meshes: cylindrical resistors, disc-shaped ceramic capacitors,
My shiny through hole resistor screen-shots had approx 6000 panels, and
yes, it does slow things down if you have lots on screen at once!