Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 20:23:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2282 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins wrote:
> If you assume (which is correct for lego parts) that every *.dat file you use to
> define a part, belongs to a whole object (the part) which is a solid object (it
> should be) then you can say that any of those subfiles can have their faces
> clipped, since they belong to a solid object, as long as they are marked
> apropriatly to enable clipping.
In other words, every face in a subfile will have other faces in the
part-construction that will form the other side of the solid, right?
That sounds correct.
> The cases which are "not so many" are the ones where we can't do this.
There are only a couple of non-symmetrical primitives, but they are used
fairly frequently: nearly every sloped brick will use them, along with
other parts which need sloped cylinders.
> Is my English that bad, isn't that what I'm saying, but you let the user choose
> if he want's BFC or NOT.
That's not acceptable, unless rendering problems were both rare and
minor. Having specific pieces render incorrectly for everyone would not
be something I could accept.
> We should have some view ahead, currently files are NOT conformant, but in some
> near future they will be, then you will NOT want the added overhead required to
> support the strange cases.
I think you're being inconsistent. Earlier in this thread, I asked if
new parts should be *required* to be BFC compliant. John responded that
they shouldn't. You replied to John:
> > Completly agree, but part authors should strive to (if possible) present the
> > parts for voiting already BFC compliant. But it's NOT a requirement.
... I reread what you wrote (^ this ^ sentence ^ right ^ here ^), and it
sounds like you are implying the all new files should be *made*
BFC-compliant, before they are released. Even if the author does not
submit them already BFC-compliant
Adding a 'clean-up' step in the process of releasing new parts is *not*
a good idea. There are already enough things that happen to files after
they are submitted, there is enough work being put into the files after
the author submits them. The *last* thing we need to do is to burden
other people with cleaning up after parts-authors, and keeping track of
who is doing what. Especially since the people who would volunteer for
cleanup duty would be, most likely, the most talented and productive
parts authors.
We should either (a) require all new files to be BFC-compliant when they
are submitted for voting or (b) not require it, and simply flag the
files that are not BFC-compliant.
I *strongly* feel that (b) is the better option. This is one of the
core assumptions of the current BFC spec proposal.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:v96neskqugbi18b...4ax.com... (...) use to (...) object (it (...) faces (...) choose (...) in some (...) required to (...) the (...) You make a very good point here, Steve (especially (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) If you assume (which is correct for lego parts) that every *.dat file you use to define a part, belongs to a whole object (the part) which is a solid object (it should be) then you can say that any of those subfiles can have their faces (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
