|
|
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) I believe that it's possible to create a program that automatically fixes the orientation of a part. Take a look at this picture: (URL) The red faces are the back faces and the green faces are the front faces. The image on the left is the part (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Manuel Silva Martins writes: <SNIP> (...) until (...) <SNIP> This is not true: Since the renderer has to assume a certain state for his models. The thing (at least in MLCad) works as follows: If BFC is on than the model is (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) Completly agree, but part authors should strive to (if possible) present the parts for voiting already BFC compliant. But it's NOT a requirement. This reasoning also favours the "non branch BFC dependence", even authors which don't supply BFC (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) This is common to both every approach I have seen, obviously ! (...) Nope! No imediate benefits, because with the parent dependence restrictions, you have to have an entire branch compliant to be able to do BFC, which includes the root,i.e. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7cjkescmg077t76...4ax.com... (...) into (...) IMHO, no. If a mostly automated cleanup tool can be devised, then a few of us could clean up new parts after they are voted in and before (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) A second question: *should* parts be required to be BFC-compliant? There is a certain amount of extra work required to make parts work for BFC. Without a mostly-automated cleanup tool, does it make sense to put this burden on part authors? (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Reflecting on (my impressions of) what Steve, Mike, and Rui have been saying, it seems we have two possible directions to go. One direction, which Steve has developed, assumes we will have some files which are BFC compliant, and some which are not. (...) (25 years ago, 4-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: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) I also have taken a rest somewhere in discussion, due to lack of time. the simpler the better. (...) Well it seems that you (Leonardo, maybe someone else) didn't understand the difference between an invert matrix and the goal of the current "0 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:38E9FB24.AD5CD6....com.br... (...) The (...) in (...) winding is (...) side (...) That works for box5, but how about 1-4cyls? -John Van (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
