Subject:
|
Re: BFC and Primitives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:48:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
316 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> 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 start submitting these files to the Parts Tracker, most part
> files will change status to "one or more subfiles not certified". This
> could wreak havoc with us reviewing and certifying files - if no one reviews
> the primitives, the parts can never reach a "certified!" status.
>
> So my question is this: if I submit BFC'ed primitives, is anyone ready and
> willing to review the files for correctness? If no is able to review these
> files, I won't submit them at this time.
>
> Steve
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 L3Lab use them but L3Lab is superceded by LDView both in
speed and quality.
2. BFC statements have little or no potential in display speed improvement.
This is the main reason why MLCad has switched to a better technique
(different traversal of the BSP tree). The BSP tree traversal for which BFC
statements have been designed will soon be (or already is) obsolete. BFC
does not worth the effort.
3. I never review BFC statements, I treat them as comments. I know that is
not be advocated behavior but I clearly assume that.
I can vote BFC-equippped primitives, but then just expect blind votes.
Finally, I don't want frozen PT situation due to upgrade to BFC primitives.
I am sorry I am not more cooperative,
Damien
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | BFC and Primitives
|
| 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 (...) (22 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
