Subject:
|
Re: BFC checking program (was Re: Some Words To BFC)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Apr 2000 21:56:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2519 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> >
> > The primitives should be the first thing fixed, in any case. :) I
> > think it would be safe for the cleanup program to assume that primitives
> > are BFC-ready. Which could be a help for automatic cleanup of part
> > files.
>
> I'm assuming that you're calling "BFC-ready" primitives that have all
> faces in the same direction. Primitives are not closed volumes so you'll
> always be able to see the backfaces.
Umm, it's a little more than that, but facing the faces is a very
important part. Basically, I meant:
1. All polygons wound correctly
2. All subfile references clean
Good point about primitives not being solid. I don't think a renderer
can/should ever assume that a single DAT file describes a solid object.
> > I don't think this issue (to INVERTNEXT or to clone primitive files)
> > will be decided on technical issues.
>
> I agree technically it doesn't make much difference, I just think it's
> easier to have another set of primitives (in another directory of with
> another name) but that's how I feel.
OK. That's two (or three?) opinions. Anyone else?
> I have uploaded the program to http://gerf.org/~leo/editor.zip (source
> + precompiled exe) there's no homepage or docs so please read this
> before you ask any questions.
Coolio! I'll try this out this weekend.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | BFC checking program (was Re: Some Words To BFC)
|
| (...) I'm assuming that you're calling "BFC-ready" primitives that have all faces in the same direction. Primitives are not closed volumes so you'll always be able to see the backfaces. (...) I agree technically it doesn't make much difference, I (...) (25 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|