 | | [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | I've submitted BFC'ed versions of all the official stu*.dat files. Surprisingly, a fair number of files are still in certified status. I expected nearly everything to drop back to "uncertified subfiles". Apparently, we don't depend on studs as much (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | (...) Um... Not to stir the pot or anything but I was reading the BFC proposal on your website and noticed that the BFC specification says that all primitves must be certified CCW. Did this get revised via discussion and not updated? -Orion (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) There was some discussion whether one winding was better or not. Not limited to primitives, just in general. I think I arbitrarily put in the clause about all primitives being CCW, mostly to promote consistency, but also partly to see if it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | | | (...) For starters, I recently tried to track down the BFC specification but couldn't find it (on ldraw.org or on Steve's site). Could someone post the link please? (...) If it doesn't matter from a performance perspective, I vote you kill the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) (URL) (...) I think the only way it would matter for performance is if we decided that the *entire* library would be CW or CCW, and so rendering programs wouldn't have to check the winding direction at all. And that would be a very small (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't think that it matters either. My Naval Nuclear Power eye for detail kicked in and I felt compelled to comment. -Orion (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) Given the fact that they have to check whether or not a given file has been mirrored, I can't see that the directionality would make a large difference. If everything used CCW, then only mirrored ones would need to be reordered (assuming the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | Hello, Comments below... Travis Cobbs wrote: > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: > >>In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tony Hafner writes: >> >>>In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: >>> >>>>>Um... Not to stir the pot or (...) (22 years ago, 6-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) [snip] OK, sounds reasonable to me. (...) Yes. (...) [snip more] You understand the usage correctly. Except there's no special tie between a 'mirroring' subfile reference and the INVERTNEXT command. Authors won't explicitly use one to 'undo' (...) (22 years ago, 8-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | Steve Bliss wrote: > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Kyle McDonald wrote: > [snip more] > > You understand the usage correctly. Except there's no special tie > between a 'mirroring' subfile reference and the INVERTNEXT command. > Authors won't (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | | Maybe I'm more confused now, or less who knows. But I don't think I made what I was trying to say clear in that last post. So here I am replying to myself... :) (...) That last sentance doesn't really get across what I was trying to say I think. (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry, I must have been reading more into your example than you intended. (...) It's the former: the author intends to make a reflected object, but not an inverted object. (...) It depends on who (or what) you want to keep things simple *for*. (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Implicit face winding (was: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: Implicit face winding (was: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives) —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Implicit face winding (was: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | | (...) Hi Steve, May be I have missed something, but I need "RingX.dat" BFC-ed primitives, otherwise I can not review these studs: p/stud2 p/stud2a p/stud4 p/stud4a p/studp01 p/stu2p01 Damien (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) The ring primitives are being worked on, I believe. Steve (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | (...) Hey- but I never heard back about which ones you wanted me to work on. Should I do all the rings? That would solve this: (URL) the PT says to send new versions of existing official files to you instead of posting them directly. Should I (...) (22 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) That's weird - I know I answered your email. No big deal. (...) files already having been done by you and Damien), you're going to work on the rest of the boxes. Anyone else want to help? (...) You *can't* post new versions of official files. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
