Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Apr 2000 06:16:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1870 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Michael Lachmann wrote:
> I warn everbody to put to much additional into BFC since I found out, that the
> BFC overhead is not to
> underastimate. To much additional checks would cost drawing speed and therefor
> make BFCed file-drawing slower.
What would you suggest simplifying or removing?
> As an example I take the matrix-repair statement:
> Checking the matrix for bad definitions is easy, but then you have to find
> out, which of the values is wrong, and correct it.
How do you mean? What is a 'bad definition' in a matrix? Having a
negative determinant? And what do you have to do to correct it? My
understanding was that the rendering program could handle this problem
by reversing which winding it was expecting.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) the (...) therefor (...) I would suggest to make the meta-commands for the renderer as simple as possible and move all other corrections to external programs or functions. I believe that what we have of BFC in MLCad for example is good enough (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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. (...) (24 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
