Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:49:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2825 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Manuel Silva Martins writes:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Michael Lachmann wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
> > > So every model you have made until now will NOT benefit unless you re-edit • it.
> > > Also the more used files are the primitives files, which you won't benefit • until
> > > a part file is correct, since they generally reside at the leaf nodes of • the
> > > branch.
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > This is not true: Since the renderer has to assume a certain state for his
> > models.
>
> Yes, the correct and safe assumption is CLIPPING DISABLED.
>
> > The thing (at least in MLCad) works as follows:
> > If BFC is on than the model is certified, otherwice if BFC is off it will • not
> > enable BFC at all!
>
> 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 the model *.dat file is the one • which
> uses an unwanted inverting reference, which means it should NOT be considered
> compliant, and You don't have how to check.
>
> > So if you enable BFC usage, the model is certified and all BFCed parts are
> > correctly BFC processed.
> >
> > The problem starts when creating models which have primitives in them • (Lines,
> > Triangles ...) in that case MLCad refuces to BFC them until they are in a
> > sub-file.
>
> This does is NOT a solution to the problem I refered above.
>
> This demonstrates the extra checks which are beeing done, which aren't really
> necessary with the approach I support.
>
> See ya
>
> Rui Martins
OK, Slowly ...
A model-file always is BFC complient until it gets included and you don't know
anything about it.
But the root model can do what it likes, it will effect BFCing just with it's
rotations.
Here we build in an easy check to see that we have a invertion matrix or even a
matrix which disables BFC checks.
So it works, and until now nobody could proove the oposit.
I more and more get the feeling, that you can't take that other opinions. Sure
everyone of us has ideas, and if I try to convince somebody of my ideas, it's
definitly not good, to blame him, but I also have to listen and accept if
others have other ideas.
The fact the BFC is already working, shows us that Steves and all others
working with him, where right and NOT wrong, but that is what you try to say
since days no, and you never stop ... Maybe you should accept that there are
other ideas and opinions than yours.
Best regards,
Michael.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
