 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Technic Link vs Technic Rod
|
|
The name of part 2637 "Technic Link 16L" is a bit problematic, because it interferes with the 3711 "Technic Link Chain" and 3873 "Technic Link Tread". Would it make sense to rename 2637 to "Technic Rod 16L"? That way, it would appear in it's own sub (...) (23 years ago, 20-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)
|
| |
| | 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: LDGLite bug report (yes, one more)
|
|
(...) I think it's gonna be a while before I can get organized enough to roll a new release, but this edge line option, as well as the camera and near/far clip plane controls, have been added to the sources if you want to try it out. You can get (...) (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: 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)
|
