 | | BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Rui has stated that there are outstanding issues with the BFC proposal that are not included in the issues list at the start of that proposal. With this message, I am going to review the messages from the "Line in the Sand" thread, which started at (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Second in a series, collect them all... (...) I believe the language around the 'defaults' has been cleared up sufficiently. (...) Hmm. I don't think there was much more discussion about whether every file should have an explicit 0 BFC CCW CLIP (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Here's the third message in my review of the "Line in the Sand" thread. This message covers my review from message #28 to message #40 in the thread (sorted by thread-view, not chronology). That's (URL) for the start, and (URL) for the finish. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Fourth in the series, starting with message #41 in the "Line in the Sand" thread. Notice that I scanned past a number of messages before I got another 'open issue' hit. This posting covers up to & through message #83, the end of the thread. In (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Fifth and final in the series. Summary of the recap. This concludes my review of the "Line in the Sand" thread. If I have overlooked any issues, important or trivial, feel free to point them out. If there's something I didn't mention in this thread, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Steve: (...) No. - Or rather: That depends on how good looking a rendering you want. Thinking a bit more about it, I think we can get just as good result _with_ clipping of transparent surfaces as without. Yes, transparent surfaces can be clipped! (...) (25 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread ! (...) It seems that it is currently on version 9 ! isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK. (...) Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, I taught you were against local (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I agree with the default from the start, I proposed them, somewhere ! (...) Agreed! but that's NOT currently written that way, is it ? (...) NO it is NOT ! read on. (...) I know that the branch only would be required, but I don't agree with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
I read the current proposal, and I have this to say: I don't agree with the following paragraph when an entire branch has to have cliping on to be able to be culled, don't think so. ( I know about the invert case, solution required ) 4 Control of (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I have to read this better to make an opinion, later ! (...) Now you don't like local clipping anymore ? too or tree mails before you were in favour or am I mistaken ? I should we make complicated spec for clipping, just because of one stupid (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I believe that the only problem is that these matrixes can't be inverted ! I'not sure if placing a one on the specific place has exactly the same graphic behaviour ? can someone confirm ? (...) Use my proposal: 0 CERTIFY BFC MTX where MTX is (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Well I have to congratulate you for the effort ! Has always, when asked to, you provide some nice output! ;) So now let's discuss it. Just reply to my previous replys to "LITS 2" mails. I have to say, that I'don't actually have time know to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) No, it isn't. BUT, there is very little functional difference between what is currently written and the suggestion above. As far as the function of a rendering engine is concerned, there is no difference -- if a file doesn't specify the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) OK, I just stated that this isn't written as said above, maybe it would be clearer if it was, but I undestood it from the "proposed spec". [...SNIP...] (...) [Mind Drill ON 8) ] I got that, but you keep on thinking about it, without trying the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I've kept thinking about it, and I don't see a solution. There are some algorithms that can figure out the normal/inverted question in some cases, but these algorithms would be too slow to implement in a rendering program. And they are not (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Unless we have a solution to the invert case, the document's assertion is correct. (...) I think you are correct that NOWIND/UNKNOWN is not important/needed. For now, let's proceed assuming that decorations will be handled by using NOCLIP or (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I think we're using different meanings here. By 'local clipping', I mean the clip-setting in a subfile disappears when that subfile is finished. It is not carried back up to the superfile, and it is not reinstated if the same subfile is used (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Oh, good. :) I wasn't sure before, but after posting a follow-up to John today, I figured it out. Now, about those transparent parts with decorations... Steve (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Actually, the problem is that their determinant is 0, neither positive nor negative. So the renderer would have to disable BFC processing for any file with this kind of reference. Another problem (that L3P handles in most cases) is that (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Yes, it did. But I'm pretty sure that all important topics have been addressed (or re-addressed) since that thread started. (...) Yes, and today it will change to version 10. But version 4 was a big rewrite, where the language changed from (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) Running "l3p -check" (checks all DAT's in P and PARTS) revals: SKIPPING "4285.DAT" Line 981: Singular matrix: 1 16 10 4 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1-4cyli.dat SKIPPING "6043.DAT" Line 17: Singular matrix: 1 16 0 20 -16 8 0 0 0 0 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Whew! Only one of those files is mine! :\ (...) True. (...) I don't think that's necessary. If a subfile is not certified, then the renderer will not apply BFC processing to the subfile. Besides, if having all subfiles certified was a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) If a subfile is not certified, you cannot know whether to reference it using INVERTNEXT or not. You would have to turn clipping off, but why not certify the subfile first? I don't think it will be a problem anyway, because (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Hmm, I see your point. Except that the desired orientation of a subfile may be known before that subfile is certified. Here's a (somewhat contrived) example: we've discussed defining the standard orientation of all primitive files to be (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
