 | | 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' (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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. (...) (23 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*. (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 12-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
