Subject:
|
Re: BFC revisited
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2001 05:19:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1410 times
|
| |
|
|
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 correctly.
Correct me if I am wrong. We cannot make the sloping cylinder primitves bfc
compliant since they can not be made to work on all orientations. (Except
for making a new set of them and updating all the parts that use them.)
Can reverse winding be used to correct this problem?
Paul Easter
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> I forgot to mention: if anyone is interested in looking at the most-recent
> version of the BFC proposal, it's still at:
> <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>. The first screen of text
> is meta-comments about the status of the proposal. The actual proposal
> starts at the line "LDraw Language Extension for Clipping".
>
> Steve
>
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> > 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 can email them to
> > you, if you want.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Gary Williams writes:
> > > 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 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 17-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
