 | | 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
|
| 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 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| 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)
| |
