 | | [Parts Tracker] Wrapping up 2002-02
|
|
All the Horse files, and most of the primitives updated with BFC'ness, are now certified! The one primitive not yet certified is p\48\1-4ndis.dat, but it is not the sole hold-up for any files. Over the next few days, I'll be working on getting the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: church site needs a new host
|
|
(...) Thanks. I'll fix the link tonight. Steve (22 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: church site needs a new host
|
|
(...) Never existed. But that has been handled now. Jacob (22 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: church site needs a new host
|
|
(...) Can I get a :p in too? That page references this link (URL) appears to be kaput... PS: thanks for the BFC info, that's why I followed the link, to freshen my copy of LDAO so I can get the yinyang for my own self. My copy is too old to have it. (22 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: When is the next parts release?
|
|
(...) Heh. Well, the biggest we've done with the Parts Tracker. I think the 2000-02 update was the largest ever, with 258 files. BTW, I'm showing 62 files need admin review currently. Including 13 fixes, which we can 99% count as going to certified! (...) (22 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Actually, I'm thinking of the reverse situation - the subfile is certified, but the parent file is not certified. In this case, it would be sloppy to release the subfile before the part file is released. Look at the horse files for an example (...) (22 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | numbers report
|
|
I wish the stock market had this rate of growth... :-/ Section Totals 141 certified files. 57 files need admin review. 224 files need more votes. 243 have uncertified subfiles. 94 held files. (Total: 759 files.) (For comparison): (URL) (22 years ago, 14-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Steve, If I recall correctly, this is not a problem, because the Tracker says that a file has "[x] subfile(s) isn't/aren't certified" if it has *any* subfiles (including primitives) that are *not* fully, totally, 100% certified... Thanks, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | When is the next parts release?
|
|
Even without Steve going over the 30+ parts ready for him to certify, this looks to be the biggest release ever in terms of total file count. If all the redone primitives get certified, that will at least another 15 files that were already certified (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Implicit face winding (was: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives)
|
|
(...) My bad- I guess I wasn't following the thread closely enough. (...) If I understand correctly, that doesn't really work for a huge percentage of parts. Parts will often have two surfaces in a row that both face away. Look at the breakdown of a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
