[LSC] RE: [Ldraw-content] Re: Adopting the "de-facto" BFCstandard - CARRIED

[Chris Dee]

Travis

 

I didn't write the current item myself, but I am open to any additional
helper tips, mention of other apps, etc. If you could write the actual text
you wish to appear, I can update it.

 

Chris 

 

  _____  

From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of
Travis Cobbs
Sent: 16 October 2006 17:24
To: LDraw Standards Committee
Subject: Re: [LSC] RE: [Ldraw-content] Re: Adopting the "de-facto"
BFCstandard - CARRIED

 

It may be self-serving of me to say so, but you might mention that BFC
checking can also be done in LDView.  In the Geometry tab of the LDView
preferences, enable the BFC check box, then enable the "Red back faces" and
"Green front faces" check boxes.  Then, green shows good, red shows bad, and
default color (light gray unless changed by the user) shows non-BFC'd
portions. 

One good thing about LDView for BFC is that the red "leaks" should be
minimal unless edge lines are enabled in "High quality" mode (unless the
video card has poorly written drivers).  BFC checking is probably easier
with edge lines disabled.  There can still be leaks, because any time they
use a primitive in their part, they can end up with rounding that differs on
adjacent polygons.  However, polygons that really do have identical adjacent
vertices are not supposed to show any leaks in OpenGL. 

--Travis

On 10/16/06, Chris Dee <chris_w_dee at hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes that content is not in PostNuke, but if you want to let me know how
you'd like these changed, I can update them easily.

I'd suggest in both, I just point the "What's this BFC?" to the
specification article. 

Is there anything in the reviewfaq section "How do I check a file for BFC
Compliance?" that you want changing?

Chris Dee
(chris_w_dee at hotmail.com )





>From: "LDraw" <ldraw at holly-wood.it>
>Reply-To: ldraw-content at ldraw.org
>To: LDraw Standards Committee < lsc at ldraw.org>
>CC: 'LDraw Content' <ldraw-content at ldraw.org>, parts at ldraw.org
>Subject: [Ldraw-content] Re: Adopting the "de-facto" BFC standard - CARRIED

>Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:38:10 +0200
>
>that's correct. it is PT territory and only the PT admins have previleges
>to edit those pages.
>
>w.
>
>
>William Howard writes: 
>
>>Don't think the LSC are allowed to edit those, so someone else will have
>>to
>>step up to mark.
>>
>>William
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of
>>LDraw
>>Sent: 15 October 2006 23:08
>>To: LDraw Standards Committee; parts at ldraw.org; LDraw Content
>>Subject: Re: [LSC] Adopting the "de-facto" BFC standard - CARRIED
>>
>>
>>now that this has become the new standard it would be appropriate to edit 
>>all the the text and the links in the PT references still pointing to
>>steve's geocity page. Example:
>>
>>http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/faq/ 
>>http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/reviewfaq/
>>
>>"For more information about BFC, see Steve Bliss' BFC page." 
>>
>>w.
>>
>>
>>William Howard schrieb:
>>>Having finally managed to edit out references to "de-facto" in the BFC
>>>standard article, I have announced this decision on Lugnet 
>>>
>>>W
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org
<mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org> ] On Behalf Of
>>>William Howard
>>>Sent: 12 October 2006 08:17
>>>To: 'LDraw Standards Committee'
>>>Subject: RE: [LSC] Adopting the "de-facto" BFC standard - CARRIED 
>>>
>>>
>>>With five votes for and zero against, this proposal is carried
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of
>>>William Howard
>>>Sent: 10 October 2006 21:24
>>>To: 'LDraw Standards Committee' 
>>>Subject: [LSC] Call for votes: Adopting the "de-facto" BFC standard
>>>
>>>
>>>Background:
>>>
>>>The BFC "standard"
>>> 
>>(http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload
<http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=217>
&name=News&file=article&sid=217)
>>>apparently has never had LSC approval. 
>>>
>>>------------Beginning of proposal----------
>>>That the LSC adopts the above "de-facto" standard as the draft version of
>>>the official BFC standard
>>>---------------End of proposal-------------- 
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>LSC mailing list
>>>LSC at ldraw.org
>>> <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc>
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>LSC mailing list
>>> LSC at ldraw.org <mailto:LSC at ldraw.org> 
>>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________ 
>>>LSC mailing list
>>>LSC at ldraw.org
>>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>LSC mailing list
>>LSC at ldraw.org
>> <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc>
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>LSC mailing list
>>LSC at ldraw.org
>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ldraw-content mailing list
>Ldraw-content at ldraw.org
>http://mail.peeron.com/mailman/listinfo/ldraw-content


_______________________________________________ 
LSC mailing list
LSC at ldraw.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/attachments/20061016/04c99bec/attachment.htm