 | | 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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... (...) :-) 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)
|
