Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:36:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2280 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:v96neskqugbi18biehl9bpfdh2ib2j4q5t@4ax.com...
> 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.
You make a very good point here, Steve (especially since your perspective is
informed by your current role). Assuming a more-or-less automated system for
fixing parts can be developed, perhaps the way to go is to require part
authors to submit BFC compliant parts, but make it very clear how to use the
fixer program. Experienced authors could help out with new authors, much as
we currently help with missing edgelines, non-coplanar points, etc. If a
part author honestly can't figure out how to correct the BFC, I'm sure
someone would be willing to do it for them.
> 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.
Can Michael or any other programmers estimate the time savings from being
able to assume all parts as BFC compliant, rather than having to check each
one?
> I *strongly* feel that (b) is the better option. This is one of the
> core assumptions of the current BFC spec proposal.
Does the strength of your opinion depend at all on just how difficult it is
to fix a part? What if it's just a matter of downloading a program and
typing "bfcfix newpart.dat"? What if it takes just a couple additional
minutes to make further corrections? I guess I'd say if it takes more than
10-15 minutes then we shouldn't require it.
-John Van
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) Good point. We definitely *should* muddy this discussion up with some real facts. ;) (...) Yes and no. Something that's easy to do is definitely less of a 'requirement' than something that's a lot of work. But it's still a requirement, placed (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) 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. (...) There are only a couple of non-symmetrical primitives, but they are used (...) (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
|
|
|
|
