 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Steve Bliss wrote... (...) Running "l3p -check" (checks all DAT's in P and PARTS) revals: SKIPPING "4285.DAT" Line 981: Singular matrix: 1 16 10 4 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1-4cyli.dat SKIPPING "6043.DAT" Line 17: Singular matrix: 1 16 0 20 -16 8 0 0 0 0 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) Whew! Only one of those files is mine! :\ (...) True. (...) I don't think that's necessary. If a subfile is not certified, then the renderer will not apply BFC processing to the subfile. Besides, if having all subfiles certified was a (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Steve Bliss wrote... (...) If a subfile is not certified, you cannot know whether to reference it using INVERTNEXT or not. You would have to turn clipping off, but why not certify the subfile first? I don't think it will be a problem anyway, because (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) Hmm, I see your point. Except that the desired orientation of a subfile may be known before that subfile is certified. Here's a (somewhat contrived) example: we've discussed defining the standard orientation of all primitive files to be (...) (25 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
