 | | Re: Line in the Sand [DAT]
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:44:17 GMT, "Lars C. Hassing" <lch@ccieurope.com> wrote: Still discussing (URL) (...) Yes, but the 0 CERTIFY ( BFC | NOBFC ) format is more common. And it emphasizes that is one statement with various parameters. And it's less (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) In our case, it makes sense to make a single trip to the store for ingredients (primitives). Once we've got the ingredients on-hand, we can start baking the cakes. Steve No, this didn't really add to the discussion. I just liked the analogy. (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) ---...--- (...) Don't take this so personally, it's not worth it. I am only trying to contribute to a worthy cause (LEGO). Everyone can have different opinions. I don't need to jump on the other guys traught. Anyway, I apologise if I have (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand [DAT]
|
|
(...) Strange sentence, CLIPPING is OFF by default, you can change that by including a CLIPPING ON. And this was not what was beeing discussed. See below. (...) Look at this two trees root root C N / \ / \ C N C N /| |\ /| |\ C N C N C N C N 1 2 3 4 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve: (...) Yes. (...) The argument against should be that it complicates the rendering significantly, but I don't think it does. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) the (...) allow (...) OFF (...) they (...) reference (...) CLIPPING (...) Good point! (...) Or you could write: 0 CERTIFY BFC | 0 CERTIFY NOBFC 0 WINDING CW | 0 WINDING CCW | 0 WINDING UNKNOWN (I don't think "0 WINDING" (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) I'll make these changes. I think all your points have been discussed in follow-up messages, so I'll make my responses (if there are any) to those later messages. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) As Jacob said, this is why the specification suggests that rendering programs allow the user to select the option of defaulting CLIPPING to on or off. (...) Huh? In that case, the uncertified primitive is not back-face-culled, but the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Yes. WINDING UNKNOWN allows a DAT author to specify what is happening in the file more precisely than CLIPPING OFF. Adding WINDING DOUBLE-SIDED would allow even more author-precision, but there is no practical difference between DOUBLE-SIDED (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) You'll pardon me if I use an abbreviated notation, and skip the " characters. (...) It's hard to argue with that. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Yes, and 'may' is more more correct than 'should', since the "Rendering Engine Requirements" section really is included just to provide a framework for the language extensions. The document specifies the input, and we have a general (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906?
|
|
(...) Not too many all at once! At least on the first go-round. After that, the more, the merrier! :) (...) Yay, Terry! (...) Terry has sent me a copy of everything he has received, post 99-06. He is also going to forward future mail to me. New part (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Problem with the LDraw Parts Tracker
|
|
Hello all, Boys and girs, I'm having a problem with the LDraw Parts Tracker. The link towards the "Tracked Parts" page still works, although only the text part of the page comes up. I don't get the seegreen background I've been used to see there (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
[ Still discussing (URL) ] Rui: (...) Yes, but generally it is no big deal to certify a model file - and there is the suggested option for the renderers mentioned further down for the lazy. (...) Yes, but we aren't all that stupid. We will of cause (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906?
|
|
Great news to see things moving again - many thanks, Steve. A great motivation for me to get those parts off the "drawing board" and into DAT files. Many, many thanks are due to Terry for all his hard work, adjudication and perseverance in the past. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906?
|
|
(...) Ditto. This message is x-posted to lugnet.cad.dev. (...) Terry plans on finishing things up for 99-06. I'll start with 99-07. Well, it might be the 2000-01 update, if there isn't enough of 1999 left to go around. (...) I was waiting for 9906 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Agreed, it's logical. Should is too strong ! not like must, but strong anyway. (...) of course, but all files start on one root, if that is no BFC certified, than no acceleration. (...) but a certified part can have sub parts not certified ! (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906?
|
|
[ XFUT lugnet.cad ] Adam Howard asked when the next parts update will show up. Terry has been much too busy lately, to work on the parts update (or play with LEGO for that matter), so he has handed the task of preparing the parts updates over to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906?
|
|
(...) Terry (the person who takes care of the voting) said that he was going on vacation in August and we haven't heard from him since. Leonardo (25 years ago, 7-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Update 9906?
|
|
Hi! When is the next parts update going to be posted for official download? ldraw.org and the mirror site show 9905 as the last official update. Voting for 9906 was completed in August wasn't it? Just curious...not impatient. Thanks, Adam (25 years ago, 7-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
