Subject:
|
Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:00:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
596 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
> > I didn't think I had them 'undoing' in the first example. I'm
> > confused now :(
>
> Sorry, I must have been reading more into your example than you
> intended.
>
> > Non-inverting mirroring? Do you mean mirroring where the author doesn't
> > *intend* inverting? or are you saying it's possible to create a matrix
> > that would mirror without inverting?
>
> It's the former: the author intends to make a reflected object, but not
> an inverted object.
>
> > Again if
> > I understand correctly, you would *not* want the 0 BFC INVERTNEXT command
> > here, instead having the program notice the matrix, and flip the faces
> > back automatically. While I aggree this probably isn't much of a performance
> > hit, it seems backwards to me. The part's author (I would think) knows
> > wether the mirroring/inversion effect is desired. It probably doesn't
> > slow the software down that much to check these things, but it seems to
> > me it will add lines of code, program complexity and opportunities for bugs,
> > that the opposite way could avoid. Maybe I'm just a stickler for 'Keep It
> > Simple Stupid.'
>
> It depends on who (or what) you want to keep things simple *for*. I'd
> prefer to keep things simple (and flexible) for the part authors, rather
> than for the rendering programs.
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 authors have to get it right for every single
part made. In addition to that, there are likely more part authors than
rendering program authors, so more people have to be educated.
Based on Kyle's comments, I think he believes that his proposed change would
have a minimal impact on part authors. This may or may not be the case; not
being a part author, I don't feel myself qualified to judge. However, it
sounds like Steve (who is a part author) feels it would make part authoring
more difficult.
--Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 11-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
| (...) 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)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
