 | | 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? [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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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 (...) (19 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?
|
|
(...) 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 (19 years ago, 20-Apr-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
