Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:26:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2162 times
|
| |
|
|
I need to digest this. I'll respond tomorrow.
Steve
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten wrote:
>
> Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message
> news:38EB3EB8.D81D2CD7@centroin.com.br...
> > John VanZwieten wrote:
> > >
> > > If I've misstated anyone's position, or if I'm missing some major issue • here,
> > > I apologize, and please enlighten me :)
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Hey, this idea might work in conjuction with your program that fixes parts.
> If we had a parallel directory (/pi/?) with a copy of each primitive with the
> winding opposite, then whenever the fixer program finds a primitive which
> needs to be inverted, it could just add "pi/" to the primitive name in that
> line. Part authors wouldn't have to mess with this; it would all be done in
> the post-processing stage.
>
> So here's my suggestion for a simplified BFC regime:
>
> 1. We handle BFC certification at the parts level (/parts directory), and
> fix all the parts at "once." New parts would be fixed before they are
> released. By "fixed," I mean that all outward faces are wound CW, and a
> second set of primitives are used to model "inner" faces. Cases of
> double-sided quads would have to be ferreted out and fixed.
>
> It seems to me that Leonardo's program is up to this task, perhaps with a
> little improvement.
>
> 2. If the rendering program can assume that all parts are correctly CW, then
> it doesn't have to waste time checking for certification, winding direction,
> BFC on/off, etc. If a part is used in a model file with an inverted matrix,
> then that part must be CCW, and the rendering engine can account for that.
> As Michael pointed out, primitives, quads, etc. used in a model cannot be
> BFC'd. Likewise, mock-ups need to be kept out of the /parts directory so
> they won't be BFC'd either.
>
> So what do you think? Can this be done? Are there contingencies not
> accounted for here?
>
> -John Van
>
> P.S. Please note that I am not in any way "dissing" all the work put into
> the BFC proposal. Without it, Michael probably wouldn't have implemented
> BFC, and we still be talking only theoretical. I simply think that given
> what we found in MLCad and given the impressive fixer programs we now have to
> work with, this way seems to offer the greatest potential improvement and the
> least complexity.
>
>
>
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:4qbnescr7hii5bq...4ax.com... (...) I hope it doesn't cause indigestion :-) -John Van (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:38EB3EB8.D81D2C....com.br... (...) here, (...) Hey, this idea might work in conjuction with your program that fixes parts. If we had a parallel directory (/pi/?) with a copy of each (...) (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
|
|
|
|
