 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I agree. If someone provides me the spec, I'll add it to the site. -Tim (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) The wonderful Google came up with this link on a search for "BFC CERTIFY NOCERTIFY CLIP NOCLIP CW CCW INVERTNEXT" (URL) to me looks like the latest revision, but I guess Steve Bliss is the right person to ask. /Lars (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes, that's the latest document that can claim to be a spec. I checked the Parts Tracker FAQ, but it just pointed me to (URL) just has links, primarily to the document Lars found. If anyone wants to rewrite the proposal document to something (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
Thanks to everyone for the info. Now that I'm reading the spec, I have a question (and may have more later). In one part, it lists three conditions that must be met in order for BFC clipping to occur. The last condition is the following: 4 - No (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Steve - Do you want to stick this on the site, or do you want me to? Either way is fine with me. -Tim (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Please go ahead and do it. Make it so. Steve (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec? [DAT]
|
|
(...) Sorry this wasn't clear. It does mean 'current file and all subfiles'. More accurately, it means 'turn off clipping until/unless it gets turned back on in this file, overriding any possibility of clipping in a subfile, until the end of this (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) What if file has NOCLIP, and subfile has CLIP (with or without accompanying NOCLIP)? Couldn't that become confusing? Should it automagically revert back to NOCLIP when the subfile is finished? ROSCO (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I'm currently doing this. Give me a couple of days. -Orion (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) The spec should probably be updated to reflect this, I suppose. Please note that this comment and everything below is meant as constructive criticism. It's not meant as a complaint or a slight. I'd just like to see the spec improved. I'll even (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) This is really no different from the fact that the incoming certify state has to also be on. So a subfile won't be BFC'd unless all its parents are certified and it is certified as well. Also, presumably if you refer to a subfile in a section (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked? /Lars (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Your fresh eyes are very welcome. We had long discussions where sections of the spec were changed/moved/rewritten over and over, and I think there are some unnecessary repetions and redundacies, so a new full rewrite would be quite beneficial. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) OK I'm done. Here's the spec in a more readable format: (URL) didn't change anything, I just cleaned up the text and made a TOC. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Orion! Would you mind emailing me the plain text, so I can assemble it on a web page for LDraw.org? We can also host the PDF you created on the server for those who prefer it in that format. -Tim (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Sure, but give me a moment. I just noticed the the graphic I added to the text didn't make it into the PDF therefore skewing the TOC. -Orion (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
I saved this thread for later reading, and I've got a few questions now. Sorry if I'm resurrecting something everyone thought was dead :D (...) Once the parts library is fully BFC certified, will there ever be a need to use CLIP or NOCLIP? I'm not (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) There are currently a number of flags that indicate that a file is a part. The official one is only present in files that have been updated since it was made official. However, this isn't a problem, since any BFC-certified part is guaranteed (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) During the rendering process, it is necessary to keep track of both the 'accumulated clip-state' and the 'local clip-state'. The accumulated clip-state is logically equivalent to boolean ANDing the local clip-states of all the parent files. As (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I could kind of see that, but not in the parts library. I would expect that any file in the library that specifies NOCLIP does it for a good reason, and should not be overrode (overridden?). What I could maybe see in the parts library is a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I thought it was dead 2 (or 3?) years ago. ;) (...) That's a pretty big 'once' you've got there. One problem I've had, revisiting old part files and applying BFC -- once you look at a file, you're also tempted to fix any/all errors you find in (...) (20 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Hmm. To tell you the truth, I don't remember. My main use for it is to make sure patterns are rendered on the backside of transparent solids. I will *allow* that NOCLIP/CLIP can be used to allow non-compliant sections of code, but I don't feel (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Absolutely. :) The spec was never ratified or 'officially' accepted as a standard. Parts of it are have definitely evolved as the defacto standard, but that's not the same as having a good, documented standard to follow. I think the spec can (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Did you flag your changes? Basically, you should have changed the rev to 11 (and updated the modification date). And put an 11 on the left side of any lines you changed. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I hadn't thought about NOCLIP. (...) I think that FORCE would be more useful if it overrode NOCERTIFY, but not NOCLIP. When you say NOCERTIFY, you're saying you don't know how the file should be culled. When you say NOCLIP, you're saying you (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) OK, I'll start working on it. It might take a few days. Before I start, though I'd like to suggest resetting all line-version tags in the current version to 1, and then making my new changes as version 2. Given how long it's been since the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I think it could, in models and unofficial stuff. But I don't think it would be useful in the official parts library. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I think that's all right. (...) Hey, it looked like so much fun ... I don't think you were around for the old days. I might not have replied to every message in .cad, but it was close to that. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Do we really need to put the revision number next to every line? I find that astheically annoying. The way we do it in Nuke land is put a heavy black line in the margin next to all the lines that changed from the last revision. -Orion (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I never imagined those numbers would be a permanent part of the document. I thought they'd go away once we accepted the BFC standard. But that never actually happened, so the document was never finalized, so the numbers never went away. When (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Don't forget, as per this post ((URL) I'm resetting all the numbers in the current document to 1 prior to making my new changes. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I started creating a page for LDraw.org out of Travis' text file of the BFC spec. Should I wait, since you're adding numbers? The one Travis sent me didn't have numbers in them. -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I'm betting Orion sent it to you, since I certainly didn't, and he sent me the same file. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes, he sent it to me last week. Is there going to be a newer version I should wait for? -Tim (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I will be producing a modified version ASAP that incorporates the various suggestions in this thread. However, it won't be nearly as easy to read as his version is at the moment, since it will have version numbers at the beginning of each (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) ASAP means right now for the hard-to-read-but-rev...ion-marked version: (URL) not going to work on making an easy-to-read version until I've gotten some comments, though. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote: [snippity-do-dah] Sorry, I found an old post still waiting to be authorized. I hit "Post" instead of "Delete". Steve (20 years ago, 20-Apr-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
