 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Still discussing: (URL) and now (URL) I posted an update to the v4 spec just now. It includes the changes suggested by Jacob. Things have been quiet lately, so I want to throw out a couple of questions: Does anyone have an opinion on whether it (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve: (...) I kind of like the newer approach. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) at first i misread that as: (...) and thought to myself "wow, Steve's in a really cynical mood".. hehe.. guess i'm just projecting my own cynicism... J (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) I had originally written "before the end of this millenium", but I thought that sounded too pessimistic. And I didn't want to give anyone an opening for the 2000/2001 diatribe. Steve Personally, I just care when the odometer rolls over. (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) If the academics are right, it may have rolled over in 1993/94; so many problems are associated with just when we started counting, not to mention whether it's 2000 or 2001 years! best, LFB (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) I prefer the newer with only one new meta-statement. This easily identifies commands related to BFC. However, the syntactical change doesn't solve the discussion about the CERTIFY option, see later. I have some suggestions (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Sorry this is so long. I've tried to err on the side of quoting too much of Lars' message, rather than too little. Also, I've tried to be thourough in my replies. In related news, I've added a 'Current Issues' section at the top of the v4 document. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Seems Geocities is having some trouble, and the shortcut URLs won't work. Try these instead: (2 URLs) Steve (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) OK. The pseudo-code reflects this now. (...) I meant "The fact that 0 BFC CERTIFY implies 0 BFC CLIP and 0 BFC CCW should be stated explicitly in the CERTIFY section in Language Extensions". The code was clear enough. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Sometimes, transparent parts have decorative printing. And the LDraw library should be written so that modelers can use any part in any color, even if LEGO hasn't released that part/color combination yet. Decorations on transparent parts shows (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message ... (...) Remember BFC must be disabled for transparent parts. That's what If 32 <= Color And Color <= 47 Then AccumClip = FALSE takes care of. Frankly I can't think of any situations where double-sided sections are (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Hmm. that makes me wonder if the logic of turning of BFC clipping when a part's color is transparent will really work. Because a part may have the main color as 16, and some sections are hard-coded to a transparent color. In this case, the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
[ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: You can also put them on ldraw.org now that you have an account here. Here comes a commented/edited version. Lines starting with "#" are my comments and lines starting with "J" are my changes/additions. ---...--- (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) If IsTransparent(Color) Then AccumClip = FALSE takes care of solid non-16 colors (decorations) in parts used transparently. And a similar check added to BFC() can take care of transparent non-16 colors in parts used as (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) It's an admin role vs. personal role thing. I took it upon myself to write up a spec, I didn't want to imply that it was endorsed by the group at large. (...) Hmmm. You're right. Inversion is no more global than accumulated clipping. They are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Yes, it would render correctly, but it would also disable clipping more often than is required, in the case of mixed solid and transparent sections. Think of a submodel where the author used color 16, and the person using the submodel renders (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
[ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: (...) That makes sense. (...) I'll reuse the notation. ---...--- (...) # Fine. (...) # I'll try a complete reformulation: 4 INVERTNEXT J This option is used to swap the definitions of "inside" and "outside" (i.e. J (...) (25 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) I like your explanation better, but I think we're both missing the point: this paragraph is supposed to be about INVERTNEXT, not inversion. Fewer details are appropriate at this point. More details should go in (1) the explanation of inversion (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
[ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: [...] (...) Correct. (...) J subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately J following subfile command. I don't think the "and nowhere else" is that important. You already have written "only". (...) (...) (25 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: [about INVERTNEXT] (...) OK. Steve (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) I think this is a possible, but rare case. It can, however, be circumvented by regarding DAT files from PARTS as special. (...) Why not? Any information you can gather by simply analysing a DAT file should not be required (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand [DAT]
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote... (...) (snip) (...) Why? Are you thinking about 1 16 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1-4disc.dat The determinant is zero, which BTW causes POVRay to halt ("singular matrix"). L3P has to fix these matrices or POVRay would not render (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Matrix-inversions are not evil. But for some reason, using them to actually invert subfiles is evil (as opposed to using INVERTNEXT to invert subfiles). If I reallly needed an answer to this, I'd go read past messages. But I *do* remember: a) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) In that case, why are we wiggling about with this BFC extension stuff? Rendering programs can figure out what order vertices should be put in, and they can figure out which way a polygon is facing. They don't need all this extra effort from us (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote ... (...) Is this a joke? You argue very well in "Inversion" in "Language Extension Functionality" about the 3D tube ;-) /Lars Sorry if I missed a pun. (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) :-) Jean-Pierre's analyzer is not a "simple analysis" and may not work 100% correctly without human intervention. /Lars (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) I do, it's because of those cases like an hollow cylindir DAT file is referenced by another DAT file. Since the cylinder is supposed to be define outwards, but you can use it to make the inside/outside of a stud (for example) and the if the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
|
(...) Nope, not a joke. I seriously didn't remember the reason(s) why other approaches wouldn't work as well as INVERTNEXT. I poked around old messages a little bit, I think I remember better now. Let me (attempt to) explain: When this whole BFC (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
