 | | 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
|
| I forgot to mention: if anyone is interested in looking at the most-recent version of the BFC proposal, it's still at: (URL). The first screen of text is meta-comments about the status of the proposal. The actual proposal starts at the line "LDraw (...) (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| I have printed the bfcspec file for review. Hopefully I will get a response back to you. I have been using BFC in most all my new parts for the last six months or so. Please send me the BFC compliant primitives, so that I can be sure I am using them (...) (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| (...) I would appreciate that. -Gary (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| (...) Cool! (...) will do. (...) I'm not understanding the problem. I've made versions of the sloping cylinders that are bfc-compliant. (...) Do you mean the problem (not just with sloped cylinders) that sometimes primitives are used for the outside (...) (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| (...) I double-checked the primitives I had, to make sure they were OK. I zipped them up, and posted them on my Geocities site. You can grab a copy from (URL). Steve (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
