 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | (...) 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? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) 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? —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | | 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? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | 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)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Latest BFC Spec? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) 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? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
