To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 3217
3216  |  3218
Subject: 
Re: Line in the Sand
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Wed, 10 Nov 1999 18:56:15 GMT
Viewed: 
1660 times
  
See <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>

There is a serious weakness in this document, 'certification' is not clearly
defined.  This definitely needs to be addressed.

Currently, the only definition of certification is:

1 Certified.  In this document, a DAT file is certified if it complies

... which is a bit of a typo.

My definition of certified follows.

A file is certified when:
1. The file includes a 0 CERTIFY BFC statement in the header comments.
2. The file complies with the specifications of the language extension, and
   does not include syntax or commands which conflict with the extension.
   a. The winding of polygons matches any occurrences of the 0 WINDING
      statement.
   b. The clipping setting is changed to mark sections which must always be
      rendered, either because they are double-sided or not compliant.
   c. All subfiles which should be rendered as inverted are marked with a 0
      INVERT statement.  No other 0 INVERT statements appear in the file.

Does this sound OK?

Steve



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Line in the Sand
 
I think we should drop the CERTIFY as it is superfluous and apparently adds more confusion than it clarifies! Why not settle for: 0 WINDING (CCW|CW|UNKNOWN) This defines the winding of the following polygons and means that the file is "certified", (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
  Re: Line in the Sand
 
Steve: (...) [...] (...) ...with the inversion status. (...) Yes. You might want to change "INVERT" to "INVERTNEXT". Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Message is in Reply To:
  Line in the Sand
 
OK, we've been discussing how to best extend the LDraw language to allow rendering engines to do backface-culling. We've got a pretty good agreement on most of what is needed. I think it would be productive, at this point, to work from a complete (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)

85 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
    

Custom Search

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