Subject:
|
Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:58:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
963 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing 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 8 0 0 0 4-4cyli.dat
> SKIPPING "3741.DAT" Line 7: Singular matrix: 1 16 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 stud4.dat
> SKIPPING "6267.DAT" Line 85: Singular matrix: 1 16 110 96 -10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1-4con3.dat
> SKIPPING "6267.DAT" Line 86: Singular matrix: 1 16 110 96 -10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1-4con4.dat
> SKIPPING "6267.DAT" Line 88: Singular matrix: 1 16 -110 96 -10 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-2 1-4con3.dat
> SKIPPING "6267.DAT" Line 89: Singular matrix: 1 16 -110 96 -10 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-2 1-4con4.dat
> SKIPPING "4095.DAT" Line 15: Singular matrix: 1 16 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4-4cyli.dat
> SKIPPING "4095.DAT" Line 18: Singular matrix: 1 16 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4-4cyli.dat
Whew! Only one of those files is mine! :\
> > > Use my proposal:
> > > 0 CERTIFY BFC MTX
> > >
> > > where MTX is Matrix, correct non singular matrices
> >
> > But that would be an extra flag that would complicate processing, and
> > slow the rendering engine down.
>
> I see the MTX more like an administrative info. The renderer should always
> check the file...
True.
> The BFC-checker program must refuse to certify a part if any subfile
> is not certified. So that flag would be implied in CERTIFY.
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 requirement for
certifying a superfile, then we might as well get started cleaning up
all the part-files now. Because we won't get any benefit from BFC
processing until all parts (which are subfiles from models) are
certified.
BUT, the BFC-checker should reject any file containing subfile commands
with singular matrices.
> > No matter what we specify, the rendering engine should still check for
> > singular matrices (that's pretty low impact, as it's the same
> > calculation as checking for matrix reversal) and disable BFC processing
> > if necessary.
>
> Right.
>
> > I'm not yet convinced that there isn't another way that renderers could
> > handle the problem. Which is part of the reason I've been in favor of a
> > NOWIND or DOUBLESIDED option -- most renders would treat it just like a
> > NOCLIP command, but if a better solution was found in the future, the
> > part files would already contain the little bit of extra information
> > needed to take advantage of the new solution.
>
> Good point.
OK. So what do we do with it?
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
