 | | Re: BFC revisited
|
|
(...) I would appreciate that. -Gary (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Datsville Overview Map (Was: Boundary Box Utility)
|
|
(...) I think realtime rendering qualifies as above statement (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad, 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 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
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | BFC revisited
|
|
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 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Datsville Overview Map (Was: Boundary Box Utility)
|
|
Here is another idea for optimizing dat models. It isn't a very good one, but, it just seems more realistic than what I said earlier (writing a utility smart enough to optimize an entire model). One could write a utility that presents each polygon (...) (23 years ago, 16-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDGLite bug report (yes, one more)
|
|
Don: (...) Definitely. (...) Yup. :-( Jacob (23 years ago, 16-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Datsville Overview Map (Was: Boundary Box Utility)
|
|
You could specify (or firmly recommend) in the future that models must posses boundary boxes measured in degrees of tilewidths (or half-tilewidth's). Anything less than that would be considered a prop. Props would then be dealt with seperately, just (...) (23 years ago, 16-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Datsville Overview Map (Was: Boundary Box Utility)
|
|
Of course, the same could be accomplished in LDraw. Mike (...) (23 years ago, 16-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
