Subject:
|
BFC revisited
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:07:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
375 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm looking for a model file that utilizes BFC-certified parts to test
backface culling in the CAD application I'm developing.
Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, only 13 part files have a BFC-related
comment, and on top of that, they're not consistently formatted:
30134 (0 BFC CERTIFY CW)
30156 (0 BFC NOCERTIFY)
30183 (0 BFC CERTIFY CW)
4107073 (0 CERTIFY BFC CW)
4107488 (0 CERTIFY BFC CW)
4107539 (0 CERTIFY BFC CW)
4150p01 (0 BFC CERTIFY CW)
4523 (0 BFC NOCERTIFY)
553 (0 BFC CERTIFY CW)
73593 (0 CERTIFY BFC CW)
9044 (0 CERTIFY BFC CW)
9567 (0 CERTIFY BFC CW)
553s01 (0 BFC CERTIFY CW)
I had hoped that by now, at least the basic bricks would be BFC compliant,
since they are used more often than any other parts.
It would be neat if we could develop a standard set of DAT files for testing
Lego renderers. These would be akin to the famous teapot model that was
used for the first general-purpose renderer.
-Gary
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| There was never agreement on what the BFC standard should be. So there aren't very many parts that follow it in any way. I do have a set of primitives that are BFC-compliant. I didn't straighten out all the primitives, but I did a number of them. I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| Gary Williams wrote... (...) Steve, please note that Gary pointed out that some parts are badly formatted... "l3p -check" doesn't complain, as "0 CERTIFY BFC CW" is a perfectly legal comment :-) I don't think l3p easily can be made to check this, "0 (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
