Subject:
|
Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:49:34 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1915 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten wrote:
> Now that MLCad is supporting BFC, should we begin overhauling the parts
> database to take advantage of this? I'd be interested in working on this for
> a while.
Oh, good! Fresh blood. :)
I've uploaded a BFC-test file with the part files for a few bricks, and
the primitives needed to support them. Anyone who wants to play with
these files can get them from
<http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfctest.zip>. My suggestion: make a
second installation of LDraw. Unzip these files over that new
installation. That way, you don't mess up your existing installation.
> What is the status of the meta-command discussion? How close are we to
> closure?
I feel that we are very close to closure. The open issues listed in the
BFC proposal have more to do with cleaning up the document than with
determining the BFC language and function. The only language-related
issue is whether to keep the CERTIFY tag or throw it out.
See the proposal at: <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
Anyone who wants to take a stab at updating this document, feel free.
As for overhauling the parts library, I see three issues:
1. Protecting the Jessiman's IP rights.
2. Let's be very certain the BFC standard isn't going to need major
fixing.
3. Terry Keller has been working on cleaning up the original LDraw
library and distribution. If we're going to modify many files in the
parts library, we need to coordinate with him, so no one's time is
wasted.
I think the major work areas for BFC-ing the parts library, in
decreasing order of effort, will be:
1. Untying and aligning the winding of vertices on quads and triangles.
2. Flagging subfile references which require inversion.
3. Correcting singular transform matrices on subfile references.
Item 1 will require the most work, and it can be started now. At least,
people can start looking at the files they've written.
The good news: many of the primitive files won't need to be cleaned up.
More good news: most primitives are simple enough that clean up will be
easy. I've got a decent start on BFC'ing the primitives, I'll try to
get the rest of the way through that.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| (...) And you like that don't you ? ;) If any one doesn't ! Don't read the rest of the mail ! (...) There we go again ! I saw this coming ! Why the hack do you assume things are stable as long as you agree with the supposed current status of them ? (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| Now that MLCad is supporting BFC, should we begin overhauling the parts database to take advantage of this? I'd be interested in working on this for a while. What is the status of the meta-command discussion? How close are we to closure? -John Van (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
