 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-Mar-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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 2-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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
