 | | 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?
|
|
(...) 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: Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
(...) L3P and L3Lab treat the FILE case-sensitive. (...) I think the "file type" meta-commands are the only ones that have been defined to NOT be case-sensitive. And yes, the "syntax" is a mess :-) (...) I agree. (...) L3P and L3Lab: MPD - (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
I have a question about Meta-commands. Are meta-commands all supposed to be case-sensitive? As an example, is the 0 FILE MPD meta-command case-sensitive? I'm asking this because I have an MPD file that contains sub-files that themselves obviously (...) (22 years ago, 14-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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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? [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?
|
|
(...) Please go ahead and do it. Make it so. Steve (22 years ago, 13-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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
I'd like to (finally) add BFC support to LDView, so I performed a search here on lugnet.cad.dev to try and track down the BFC spec. Unfortunately, all the links I found were no longer valid. (Seeing as how the articles were 2 to 3 years old, that's (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] Working on Update 2003-01
|
|
Chris, Do you have any news about the update? Jaco "Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:HB4AJJ.AMC@lugnet.com... (...) time, (...) posting. (...) for (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Measurements and Authoring
|
|
"Orion Pobursky" <bilthefish@IHATESPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:HB9Itr.4zw@lugnet.com... (...) eyeball (...) Well, I've just started authoring parts, but I am rather fond of my calipers, especially for inside measurements. My set happens to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Measurements and Authoring
|
|
(...) If the region of the part interfaces with an existing part then I base it upon that. Although, feel free to challenge existing parts if they are incorrect. Otherwise I do use a micrometer or steel rule (Imperial dimensions - using 1/64 = (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Part Measurements and Authoring
|
|
A question for all part authors How do you figure out the measurements for your parts? I'm not talking about the obvious measurements such as stud width but the more intricate details on some of the more complex parts. Do you use a micrometer, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
