 | | Sphere Primitive
|
|
Is it just me or the sphere primitives have non planar quads ? Or is the sphere distorted to allow for planar quads ? Why where the sphere done in this way instead of the usual (full quads with triangles on the poles) or (all triangles) ? I hope (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) but it seams to be damaged, but I was able to get the ideia. (...) Well this is exactly what I have been researching for a month now ! and believe me to be able to correct files 100% is almost impossible, due to the way the files are built. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
Rui Martins <Rui.Martins@link.pt> wrote in message news:Pine.GSU.4.10.1...0@is-sv... (...) saying, (...) subfiles (...) those (...) fixed. (...) restrictions, (...) it. (...) until (...) the (...) allows (...) a (...) apply), (...) user. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Performance Improvement
|
|
(...) In this case you should be using 3-4disc.dat (rotate it if necessary). (...) Maybe for this case there should be a "5-8disc.dat" But that would probably mean changes to already made parts. (...) This is what is generally called a T junction, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) Yes, the correct and safe assumption is CLIPPING DISABLED. (...) This is just a Hack, you assume that a model file is compliant, or by checking its pathname or because it's the root of the branches. But this doesn't even work very wheel, if (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
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 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) Nice sets you have created there, where can I get the dat files? Regards John (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
So, this is a good time to re-iterate the purpose of the Gnu Public License (GPL): it makes gratis stuff stay gratis. Even more importantly, if you word it correctly, you can force anyone who creates an element that uses stud.dat to release their (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
Just a thought.. I noticed that Jonathan B. Knudsen has released rendered instructions for some (all? not sure) of the robots from his book: (URL) Jonathan 'influenced' some decisions to make a few parts for his use in his book. Of course these (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Identifying connections (Was: L3PLiTE?)
|
|
(...) I first thought about adding all kinds of connections but the studs are the most useful for modelling and polygon reduction (unless someone wants to write a full forward kinematics simulator). The studs are the most easy connections to check (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) I have to agree with John and Tore, all the parts/software I wrote in the past were done without expecting to get anything back. I don't want to be rude but we are fine doing everything for free and I'd like to keep things that way, I know (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) I hope this works because this will finally get some of those castle decorated elements I have been wanting for ages. (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) This might be the encouragement I need to dive further into parts development. However, I would need to have a copy of the part, and I doubt I would be able to work on anything too complicated right away (ex, no (...) (25 years ago, 3-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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
The reason why I haven't responded to this thread earlier was the complicated language that kept me from fully understanding what the point is. What I now understand about the guild is: * You are fueled by frustration over the juniorisation of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
(...) It should be not only flexible, but also generic ! by this I mean, don't assign relations with actual parts to define the connection types. Try to define the physical/mechanical property, and not particularities in some uses. (...) So these (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
As you know, I tend to see *everything* in terms of paying for it, or at least motivation, at any rate. I think John raises some good points and I don't have answers, but I do have some musings. (...) You made those parts for your own reasons, which (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:h5chescbu4k2ib5...4ax.com... (...) Speaking of minifig arms... Does the minifig modeler rotate the arms around the x axis? Or does it rotate on the angled axis that actual minifig arms (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:FsEvqJ.1pI@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) designing (...) with (...) done (...) "paid" (...) to (...) pay (...) benefit (...) I see both plusses and minuses to such an arrangement: Plusses: 1. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
