 | | Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
|
When authoring "glass" parts, should I include BFC statements? It seems like we wouldn't want to cull because all surfaces should be visible from any direction. On the other hand, BFC is a performance optimization and transparent surfaces are (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
|
(...) They require a different approach to optimization - visibility culling, not backface culling. You're right in thinking they should not be BFC. The exception I think might be a full box - which gets composited twice in a polygon system like (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
|
(...) Right. For some renderers. Basically, in standard LDraw renderers, the backside surfaces can still be culled, because multiple layers of transparent surfaces look the same as a single layer. In renderers that produce darker/more opaque areas (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
|
Doesn't the BFC "spec" mention transparency? The renderer can easily tell when something is transparent, and do BFC processing (or lack thereof) appropriately. This is necessary for correct handling of standard parts that are sometimes transparent, (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Glass... to BFC or not to BFC?
|
|
(...) Yes it does. (...) Right. Steve (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
