Subject:
|
Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:34:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2342 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins wrote:
> > With this message, I am going to review the messages from the "Line in
> > the Sand" thread, which started at
> > <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3156>.
>
> I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread !
Yes, it did. But I'm pretty sure that all important topics have been
addressed (or re-addressed) since that thread started.
> > Current proposal: <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
>
> It seems that it is currently on version 9 !
> isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK.
Yes, and today it will change to version 10. But version 4 was a big
rewrite, where the language changed from several meta-statements to a
single multi-parameter statement, on the grounds that a single statement
is easier for people to read, and faster for the renderer to parse.
> > > Issue 3: Do all files (in the root-file to current-file referencing chain) need
> > > to be certified to allow clipping, or not?
> >
> > This issue has been hashed out and settled.
>
> Where did we settle this ?
> Can't remember where or if (WE) ever did.
Sorry, my mistake.
> > > Issue 5: Can a superfile disable clipping, overriding a subfile's CLIPPING ON
> > > command?
> >
> > Yes. There are various reasons that the renderer might override a CLIP
> > tag for a subfile.
>
> Well, I think you are mixing to things here:
> - The capability of the renderer to disable all or partial "back Face
> Culling", ans an user option or an automatic setup.
> - The Superfile disabling/enabling sub files "back face culling"
>
> The First is program related, and could be used to test the files, or if
> the program finds out that because of some reason it won't be able to do
> "back face culling well
>
> The Second relates to Local or Global clipping setup, and the need for a
> tree branch to be required or NOT to have all files with clipping on to
> actually do "back face culling"
>
> Two diferent things !
> Don't you agree ?
Yes, I agree it's two different things. But I wasn't confusing a
*user's* ability to control clipping with a *part author's* ability to
control clipping.
> Also could enumerated some of the "various reasons", if diferent from the
> ones I mentioned.
Here are a couple that immediately come to mind. I'm not sure how
reasonable/far-out these are, feel free to discuss.
1. Wrap NOCLIP/CLIP commands around decorated surfaces, to prevent
transparent parts from being rendered with missing decorations.
2. Because a section of a file is too messed up to be fixed for BFC
processing.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread ! (...) It seems that it is currently on version 9 ! isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK. (...) Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, I taught you were against local (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
