To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dat.partsOpen lugnet.cad.dat.parts in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / LDraw Files / Parts / 6060
6059  |  6061
Subject: 
Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
Date: 
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:05:02 GMT
Viewed: 
3509 times
  
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:39:17 GMT, you wrote:

If not all quads are co-planer, so what, that isn't going to impact
anything.  Invisible gaps between planes, or unimportant undersides
not detailed 100% correct should not be reason to hold up parts.  My
personal pet peeve is BFCing - I can see the value, but can't see
holding a part up for it, especially with the high speed, high memory
computers we use today where a few added back-faces are not going to
make an impact.

The only reason a part should be held due to BFC is if the part is
BFC-certified, but the BFC code is wrong.  If there are errors in the BFC-ing
of
a part, it definitely needs to be held, because otherwise the flipped polygons
will be invisible on BFC-compliant renderers.

The part reviewing documentation specifically states the BFC-certification
isn't
required, though.  If I authored a part (mind you, I don't), and somebody put a
hold on it because it wasn't BFC-certified, I'd send an email to them politely
asking them to remove the hold and explaining that BFC certification wasn't a
requirement.  If that failed to produce a result, I'd send an email to the
admins asking THEM to remove the hold.

That is good advice because I have had more than one part I authored
get held ONLY because the reviewer thought it should be BFCed when no
claim was made by the part that it should be BFCed.

BFCing may be a good idea, and if someone wants to go to the extra
effort to do so them more power to them.  But I agree that parts
should not be held only for not being BFCed, and I am glad to see that
my thoughts on this are not out of line.

-Matt :)

-----------------------------------------------------
www.auctionbrick.com - username mchiles
  Matt Chiles
  1006 Horseshoe Bend Rd
  Centerville, WA  98613 USA
Phone: 509-773-5724



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
 
(...) I agree that it shouldn't be held for this reason. As for the original question, I think that they should be modeled in the way that it appears they were "intended" to be if and only if at least one of the various copies of the part that show (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)

20 Messages in This Thread:









Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR