Results 6821 – 6840 of about 86000.
|
Search took 0.02 CPU seconds.
|
|
 | | Re: Checking for bowtie quads?
|
| It's funny but two weeks ago, I developed exactly this method, the one with the cross products, and all the findings you got, too. (...) Isn't 3D math a wonderfull thing P.S. Maybe if I would have look at someone elses code or book, my life could (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|  
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| (...) Didn't answer the question, but moving on. (...) That's good to know. (...) Yes, but the proposed standard doesn't list the several options for a specific issue thta asn't been agreed iet. List the options, that's my point, because if you (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread ! (...) It seems that it is currently on version 9 ! isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK. (...) Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, I taught you were against local (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I agree with the default from the start, I proposed them, somewhere ! (...) Agreed! but that's NOT currently written that way, is it ? (...) NO it is NOT ! read on. (...) I know that the branch only would be required, but I don't agree with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| I read the current proposal, and I have this to say: I don't agree with the following paragraph when an entire branch has to have cliping on to be able to be culled, don't think so. ( I know about the invert case, solution required ) 4 Control of (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I have to read this better to make an opinion, later ! (...) Now you don't like local clipping anymore ? too or tree mails before you were in favour or am I mistaken ? I should we make complicated spec for clipping, just because of one stupid (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I believe that the only problem is that these matrixes can't be inverted ! I'not sure if placing a one on the specific place has exactly the same graphic behaviour ? can someone confirm ? (...) Use my proposal: 0 CERTIFY BFC MTX where MTX is (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) Well I have to congratulate you for the effort ! Has always, when asked to, you provide some nice output! ;) So now let's discuss it. Just reply to my previous replys to "LITS 2" mails. I have to say, that I'don't actually have time know to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) I also have taken a rest somewhere in discussion, due to lack of time. the simpler the better. (...) Well it seems that you (Leonardo, maybe someone else) didn't understand the difference between an invert matrix and the goal of the current "0 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) OK, I just stated that this isn't written as said above, maybe it would be clearer if it was, but I undestood it from the "proposed spec". [...SNIP...] (...) [Mind Drill ON 8) ] I got that, but you keep on thinking about it, without trying the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) This is common to both every approach I have seen, obviously ! (...) Nope! No imediate benefits, because with the parent dependence restrictions, you have to have an entire branch compliant to be able to do BFC, which includes the root,i.e. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) Completly agree, but part authors should strive to (if possible) present the parts for voiting already BFC compliant. But it's NOT a requirement. This reasoning also favours the "non branch BFC dependence", even authors which don't supply BFC (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Performance Improvement
|
| (...) In this case you should be using 3-4disc.dat (rotate it if necessary). (...) Maybe for this case there should be a "5-8disc.dat" But that would probably mean changes to already made parts. (...) This is what is generally called a T junction, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) but it seams to be damaged, but I was able to get the ideia. (...) Well this is exactly what I have been researching for a month now ! and believe me to be able to correct files 100% is almost impossible, due to the way the files are built. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Sphere Primitive
|
| Is it just me or the sphere primitives have non planar quads ? Or is the sphere distorted to allow for planar quads ? Why where the sphere done in this way instead of the usual (full quads with triangles on the poles) or (all triangles) ? I hope (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) If you assume (which is correct for lego parts) that every *.dat file you use to define a part, belongs to a whole object (the part) which is a solid object (it should be) then you can say that any of those subfiles can have their faces (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) When do you actually stop, when you find the correct orientation ? or after a few fixed iterations ? Eventually you could end up with an infinite loop if you are not carefull. That method does NOT really garantees any correct results due to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Leonardo Zide wrote: [...SNIP...] (...) Actually I think you missunderstood something (or maybe I did), but the 0 INVERSE meta command is to be used ONLY with file references, that is: 0 INVERSE 1 16 x y z a b c d e f g h i (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Performance Improvement [DAT]
|
| (...) As I said before, in this case it's more correct to use 3-4disc primitive, to avoid the T type juntions. (...) Yes, cracks may appear ! Same problem like in a T type junction But has someone said, nothing like real/concrete testing, so here (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
More: Next Page >>
|
