 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) I don't think they should. Parts authors are (probably) motivated by their interest for the LDraw format, so I would expect a few to handle the BFC-compliance of their parts. But to demand that everybody do this would probably exclude far to (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Performance Improvement
|
|
Rui Martins <Rui.Martins@link.pt> wrote in message news:Pine.GSU.4.10.1...0@is-sv... (...) and (...) point (...) I don't see a problem with doing this for the 4-4disc, but it would be a problem for the 2-4disc. The 2-4disc is often used in (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Performance Improvement
|
|
Oops ! wrong links. (...) Should be HTTP://is-sv.link.pt.../nstud.png (...) Should be HTTP://is-sv.link.pt.../xstud.png (...) Also I forget to mention that this reduces the number of triangles by 2 (for each stud) isn't that great ? See ya Rui (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Performance Improvement
|
|
Since the BFC discussion has everything to do with performance improvement, I would like to propose the following changes to the primitives: - 4-4disc.dat - 2-4disc.dat Remove the point which lies in position (0,0,0), because it's NOT required and (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) I'd like to have all parts compliant by making a second copy of the primitives that can't be inverted instead of using "0 INVERSE" commands. Leonardo (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) If the matrix for the box5 inside the part is inverted, wouldn't it work ? Leonardo (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:38E9EDA0.2C97D9....com.br... (...) Meaning we (...) It's not just a matter of knowing that a part is "wrong" and fixing it. The problem is primitives where either the inner faces or the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) That's why I droped out of the BFC discussion a long time ago, we are making this a big issue with proposals for a new extension when we could make things much simpler. If you know that a part is wrong, instead of adding a "0 INVERSE" (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) This is something that different Guild members have different opinions about. I've discussed my own views on this in the past... I tend to lean against it but others may not. My sense is that if our actions increase the number of parts (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
