 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
[ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: (...) [...] (...) "INVERTNEXT" is good. It makes the effect much more clear. (...) It gets much too messy when you mix the states of a parameter and the setting of that parameter. CERTIFY BFC does imply CLIPPING ON, (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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 Bliss wrote... (...) But it *does* imply CLIPPING ON. Otherwise clipping would be off. Remember, CLIPPING ON cannot turn clipping on if turned off in a superfile. If you render the part alone (just to view the single part) the CERTIFY should (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) I don't think I understand you here. Do you mean that it is strange to let the user and/or programmer of the rendering program set the initial CLIPPING value? [clipped nice rendering-process tree] (...) It's not too complicated. A rendering (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
See (URL) 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: (...) ... which is a bit of a typo. My definition of certified (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve: I have a small linguistic correction, but except for that, I consider the document finished: There will be a few requirements placed on the design of rendering programs, in order to achieve correct renderings. Any program should may violate (...) (25 years ago, 6-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) As I said it is not ready iet. The questions (options) that where up in the air, are still there, no one as discussed them, after this spec file was created. I don't have much time now, but here are several problems. Examples: check the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve: (...) I think it is ready, but I will print out a copy, and check it tonight. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) I haven't had time to reply, hope to have soon. (...) NO ! It's not quite done iet ! 8) (...) Rui Martins (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) There hasn't been any discussion on this in almost two weeks. Does everyone like this spec? Any issues? Are you programmers willing to implement this? Is it ready to go to press? Steve (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT to DXF
|
|
Jaco van der Molen (Sjaacko) wrote ... (...) (URL) lacks a link to 3DWin: (URL) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | DAT to DXF
|
|
Hi all, I know it is out there: DAT to DXF... but where? Can anyone point the URL out for me? Tnx. -- Greetingz... Sjaacko (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My first DAT file!
|
|
(...) See my second model... posted to lugnet.cad.dat.models You may have to cut-n-paste the model out and look at it in MLCad though as LDLite gets stuck close to the end. I would really like to know what the issue is there... it makes me loath to (...) (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My first DAT file!
|
|
John VanZwieten wrote ... (...) the (...) camera (...) I think it is unfortunate that MLCad uses the same "0 ROTATE" command as LDLite. Other parsers (like L3P :) may get confused. L3P can skip 0 ROTATE 180 0 0 REL 0 ROTATE 90 0 0 ABS 0 ROTATE 10 0 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw pieces printing
|
|
(...) Yeah, except this time I didn't back absolutely everything up, and I had to get help with the network settings. OBLEGO: What happened to the 9906 update? Hasn't it been about 4 months since we voted? (pardon my ignorance or lack of tact if the (...) (25 years ago, 30-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: HOSER problem
|
|
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3zox33m1d.fsf@....uio.no... (...) yourself. (...) the (...) the (...) The user supplied end and control points are used, regardless of the resulting hose length. The intermediate (...) (25 years ago, 29-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: HOSER problem
|
|
(...) Sorry for interrupting. Just out of curiosity, I would like to ask if you use the end and control points the user chooses to compose the Bezier curve, or if you alter the control points to achieve the proper length of the curved hose? I don't (...) (25 years ago, 28-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: HOSER problem
|
|
I placed the required part(752 ??) where it needs to be and then used that point for getting the end of the hose where I want it. This is what I've been doing all along and I've never gotten the wierd end point like I was experiancing with this one. (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
