TomWaltz wrote:
It's a matter of priority. Do you want 2 less polygons or a rendering that looks right?
I want both.
All edges still can be assigned custom materials. The extra polygons add nothing but risk IMHO.
I agree about the trees thing...or even the 3D people (who each have over 6,000 polygons). But, I think that it is just as fast to do profiles with minimal polygons as it is to do offsets...and it is part of modeling precisely. One never knows when imprecision may come back to bite.
For magic-wanded curvy things that are then applied to curved walls, etc., or multiplied, the polycount can have an impact...and the model is not accurate anyway. Depending on where the little gaps appear (vs changing fills), some rendering engines will 'leak light', etc.
There could come a time when someone will want to dimension the profile elements in some cut view and will have a surprise with how things add up, or export things to dwg, and have the autocad guy scratching his head over the gap/etc.
Suppose you need a hotspot in your profile where the break occurs. If the break is created by an offset - which point gets the hotspot? If the user aligns other building elements with the hotspot, how will things dimension (particularly after cumulative dimensions, or perhaps a relative-distance multiply)?
Just my 2 cents,
Karl
One of the forum moderators
AC 28 USA and earlier • macOS Sonoma 14.7.1, MacBook Pro M2 Max 12CPU/30GPU cores, 32GB