|
|
 | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: My first part: 2x8 tile
|
| That's a good start. Do you know its part number? (...) Should be: 0 Tile 2 x 8 (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
