 | | Re: Implicit face winding (was: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives)
|
|
Tony Hafner wrote: > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Kyle McDonald writes: >> >>Well I don't know that I thought it would be 'minimal' effort. I'll >>bet it would be a lot of work for parts that are already done. I >>did think that it wouldn't be that (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Implicit face winding (was: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives)
|
|
(...) I recently went over some old primitives and brought them up to BFC certification. I found it very handy to have the flexibility of doing it whichever way had more "correct" surfaces. It wouldn't be so bad if Notepad had the ability to reverse (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
Hi Travis, (...) Well I don't know that I thought it would be 'minimal' effort. I'll bet it would be a lot of work for parts that are already done. I did think that it wouldn't be that bad for new parts, because I figured the author knows best what (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) Despite being the author of a rendering program, I agree with this whole-heartedly. Each rendering program only has to get it right once, during the initial coding. If we make it easier for the program, but harder for part authors, the part (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) "marking up" would be better done by machine algorithm, and would encompass the Connection Point proposal at the same time. It would indeed yield a separate definition of the parts. A lot of high-end CAD programs read polygons (like we have) (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) Maybe I'm missing a technical distinction, but it seems he used bounding boxes *for* collision detection, as opposed to using exact volumes. (...) True. My point was, marking up the LDraw part files for volume decomposition would either: a) Be (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) Well, I can have a twisted mind sometimes. I know these moments when the best idea today, will just be plain stupid tomorrow. Thanks to Eric Olson for more precision: he used bounding boxes, not collisions. Also I still think, whereas higher (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) That was only bounding boxes (minus the studs). The piece in question was matched against all other pieces, any pieces in a line above or below were put into a list. In case one of them intersected the piece in question, a new place would be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) So stud4 would be decomposed into 16 trapezoidal prisms? That sounds like a fair amount of mark up. (...) Nod, true. But I'd rather decompose a 1x1 brick into 6 volumes (4 walls, 1 top and the stud) than 46 (one volume for each surface (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) I like the idea of CSG. Unfortunately I can not invest time in Rayshade and alternate ray-tracers. I know they can have attractive features but I am more a POV user. I must impose some limit to my (already too high) diversification. Of course, (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
