 | | BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | Dear All (but mostly PT Reviewers), I'd like to update all the current primitive files to be BFC compliant. This wouldn't be a huge task, at least for the geometric primitives (boxes, circles, discs, rings, cones, cylinders, and torii). But when I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | | (...) IMHO, i don't consider BFC statements as an important ldraw issue, for following reasons: 1. Popular tools do not use these statements (including LDraw, MLCad, LDView and L3P & POV-ray). L3Lab use them but L3Lab is superceded by LDView both in (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | (...) Some of those tools ( I know MLCad can use them ) already support them. On top of that those are not the only tools around! (...) This is just not true. In my program it make a big deal. In general, anytime you can quickly narrow down the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | | | I quote Michael Lachmann, from MLCad file ReleaseNotes.txt: Beginning with release V2.00 MLCad does no longer support BFC. However the metacommand itself is still supported but has no effect on drawing (BFC - BackFaceCulling was an experiment on (...) (23 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | | Hi. Damien Guichard wrote: > I quote Michael Lachmann, from MLCad file ReleaseNotes.txt: > > Beginning with release V2.00 MLCad does no longer support BFC. > However the metacommand itself is still supported but has no effect on > drawing (BFC - (...) (23 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) rights to access the faq directory. :\ (...) Could you, would you, post the text from this item, or maybe even email me the FAQ document? I'd appreciate it. Steve (23 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | Also, I believe, that no matter whether you use Back Face Culling or not, Having the vertices wound correctly in the DAT files is still a good thing. In the absence of a standard winding, then Documenting in each part the way the polygons are wound (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) You have to calculate a vertex normal in order to do lighting. However, it doesn't have to be the correct normal if your rendering engine supports 2-sided lighting (like OpenGL does). In this case, calculating a normal that points backwards (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) I have a question. Given that the cylinder primitives (among others) are used in situations where they are either the inner surface or the outer, won't adding BFC information to them cause problems? --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) This was an issue during the BFC Thread Wars. We figured there were basically two ways to resolve the issue: 1. Make two versions of each primitive, an "outer facing" and an "inner facing". Each BFC'ed part file would need to use the correct (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | Since there was never any response from reviewers who affirmed that they would help review these files if I submitted them, I'll hold off on this project for now. Which is too bad -- one of the key parts of BFC compliance is to wrap polygons (...) (23 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | (...) Correct polygon wrapping and CW or CCW orientation are highly desirable. I am just sorry I am not one of the "expert" reviewers that ldraw.org needs. Having more reviewers involved in LDraw tools would be much better. Damien (23 years ago, 12-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Actually, checking the BCF-ness of a file is very easy -- open the file in L3Lab, zoom in as necessary, and click the Test | mytest6 menu option. The 'mytest6' option colors all polygons according to their wrapping: Green - front side of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Ryan Farrington
|
| | | | | Steve Bliss wrote: [snip] (...) Hi, Steve! I wonder if the lack of reviewers has anything to do with not knowing what to do or how to do it. This is exactly my case. I would be willing to help out with the parts reviewing process and help get parts (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't think you're alone in feeling this way, Ryan. So, are you ready to sign up as a reviewer now? :) (...) Hmm. I could add a link to my .sig file... Seriously, if anyone has more info for the Parts Tracker FAQ, I'd be happy to add it to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) It was pointed out to me, offline, that one key question not addressed in the FAQ is this: "Do you have to be a part author to be a part reviewer?" What do you all think about this? Yes? No? Have No Idea? LMK. Steve (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think "have to be" is a bit strong, however "highly recommended" would be good if you can squeeze it in there somehow 8?) I know I learnt a lot about reviewing (and authoring!) from the comments I got from other reviewers about parts I've (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives) —Ryan Farrington
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think no. If it were so, it would stifle input from those who want to help, but have never (yet?) authored a part. I understand that one who is a parts author would possibly have a better eye for detail in reviewing; it would merely need to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives) —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | | | (...) My hints to new and more part reviewers Because it is claimed that reviewers are highly qualified people, some potential volunteers may be intimidated. I was also at first. I am not a part author and even less a highly qualified people (in (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) [snip] This is great info/advice! Can this be included in a "reviewer FAQ"? (Is there one already?) (...) Yes, yes! Please remember that, even after a part has been certified & included in the official parts library *it can still be (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think so, too. (...) If it's alright with Damien, I will add it. (...) I just put one together earlier today. (URL). Steve (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | | (...) I wonder. . .would it be helpful, or simply more confusing, to introduce more "levels" of reviewers? Currently a part requires two votes from regular users plus one from an admin user (which is currently just Steve Bliss, yes?). I think things (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) Maybe. It would be nice to get an initial review of parts as soon as possible after they're submitted. And there are occasionally some (fairly) obvious defects that aren't caught until late in the game. I might have recently posted about the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | | | (...) May be "beginner reviewers" is a name for people like you and me. Then may be "advanced reviewers" is just a new name for acknowledged part authors. These acknowledged part authors just do their best by creating the LDraw parts we love so (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: [snipped ludicrously useful tip for BFC checking] (...) Uh, increase the standard day to 48 hours??????? 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: BFC and Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I forgot complication #3: 3. If the file you are reviewing has an embedded transparent area, you won't be able to check the BFC'ness of any surface viewed *through* the transparent area. You can fall back on viewing the part with mytest6 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
