| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tony Hafner wrote:
> > Or are there official parts
> > out there that have BFC commands in them but are relying on non-BFC'd
> > primitives?
>
> Yes, this is true. And is something of an issue. However, it's not
> hard to make 'unofficial' BFC'ed primitives. Which is what I've done
> for developing and reviewing BFC parts.
>
> > Maybe I'm way off base here, though. I am under the impression that if a
> > parent file is not BFC'd, then the renderer is supposed to treat all child
> > files as non-BFC'd. In other words, a part can reference all the BFC'd
> > primitives in the world, but unless that part is BFC'd as well, all of the
> > primitives are treated as if they weren't BFC'd.
>
> Nope, you got it right.
Okay... if this is the case, then what's the status on bringing the
less-primitive primitives into BFC certification? Take studs for example.
Studs strike me as a great candidate for getting BFC'd because of the
potentially huge payoff. Of course, we've already got the fast-draw and
studline optimizations, but this would halve the rendering work as compared
to fast-draw and still display studs as 3d objects.
NOTE: The following applies primarily to parts that have already been
certified as BFC compliant *but* also rely on non-certified subfiles. I'm
talking about the issue of breaking existing part files such that they
render incorrectly because you've downloaded/created some BFC certified
studs. The only way that it applies to files not currently BFC'd is that it
affects what will have to be done to BFC them.
For *top* studs, simply creating a certified stud primitive (and
corresponding ring for hollow studs) should be fairly safe for *normal*
parts (ie no studs pointing other directions). I can't imagine that people
generally invert a top stud when it's pointing up already (though you could
rotate it upside-down and then flip it to get almost the same effect).
But bottom studs are quite commonly used upside-down (ie a negative y size).
This means that either:
- The primitive has to be certified in a really odd way
(top disc as you look at the raw primitive is flipped)
- All parts that use the stud need to be redone to handle
the stud in the "correct" orientation (and INVERTNEXT
won't work right because then the cylinders get
hosed... right?)
The first option I find distateful because then you are stuck with ugly stud
primitives that don't make sense on their own. The second one is
potentially a lot of work when bringing parts into compliance.
The main issue I see comes down to:
How many parts there are that claim to be BFC certified
but rely on non-certified subfiles?
--
Tony Hafner
www.hafhead.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
