|
|
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Manuel Silva Martins writes: <SNIP> (...) until (...) <SNIP> This is not true: Since the renderer has to assume a certain state for his models. The thing (at least in MLCad) works as follows: If BFC is on than the model is (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7cjkescmg077t76...4ax.com... (...) into (...) IMHO, no. If a mostly automated cleanup tool can be devised, then a few of us could clean up new parts after they are voted in and before (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) A second question: *should* parts be required to be BFC-compliant? There is a certain amount of extra work required to make parts work for BFC. Without a mostly-automated cleanup tool, does it make sense to put this burden on part authors? (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
