Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:29:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1798 times
|
| |
|
|
If you 're able to correct wrong things in a model so BFC can be used, is it
than not possible to make a program that goes over al your parts once and
corrects all the parts so that all your models will be automatically
correct?
Michael Lachmann <michael.lachmann@maxmobil.at> schreef in berichtnieuws
FsHJv3.Bxr@lugnet.com...
> Hy,
>
> I finaly got internet-access here, and could follow the discussions about • BFC.
> Some words I would like to say first:
> I think it doesn't make sence to blame Steve about BFC stuff, since I • asked
> him if the spec
> is in a state that we could try it. Since it was (and I know that it's • still
> not complete) I tried
> implementing it into MLCad.
> Steve and I did several tests, found missing things (matrix inversions) • and
> corrected them.
> So if someone likes to blame Steve, he should blame me as well since I did • the
> coding and therefor
> made the standard realistic.
> I believe we should all play together, instead of writing crazy letters.
>
> So ... no for the real stuff!
>
> I warn everbody to put to much additional into BFC since I found out, that • the
> BFC overhead is not to
> underastimate. To much additional checks would cost drawing speed and • therefor
> make BFCed file-drawing slower.
>
> The performance gain in MLCad using BFC varies from 0% up to 30%. This is
> influenced by e.g. the actual
> viewing angle of the model and the sice of the areas removed by a BFC • check.
> The bigger they are the more time
> you win ... So in realy big models it might even happen that you need more
> time drawing the model, than without
> BFC statements!
>
> My suggestion is to keep the BFC statements as simple as possible. Meaning • we
> should rather correct wrong defined
> parts than letting the software correct wrong definitions!!!!
> As an example I take the matrix-repair statement:
> Checking the matrix for bad definitions is easy, but then you have to find
> out, which of the values is wrong, and correct it.
> The additional code to do this correction is not much, but will cost
> additional calculation time.
> Someone might say thats not much, but an average model has arround 500000!
> triangles and quads. So we have to multiply this
> small time by 500000 and then we are somewhere in the second range!
>
> I think the BFC standard (I know there is no real) is realy good already, • no
> need to make additional effort and we should
> try to make it even faster (not slower).
>
> So my recomendation is: Just enjoy it, make use of it, make good parts and
> everything is perfect!
>
> Michael
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) <SNIP> Sure that is possible, I could imagine having a seperate tool for this, or even implementing it as a helper-function inside MLCad which does something like a BFC conversion. This solution would definitly be a better aproach. Michael (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Some Words To BFC
|
| Hy, I finaly got internet-access here, and could follow the discussions about BFC. Some words I would like to say first: I think it doesn't make sence to blame Steve about BFC stuff, since I asked him if the spec is in a state that we could try it. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
