[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] second NURBS test
Lofton, The NURBS02.cgm file is a good test. I would definitely keep it. Regarding the Catia file, I have some thoughts. First, I believe that it is useful to have some "real-world" examples in a test suite. Second, the fact that CAD data often contain NURBS was the justification for including NURBS in WebCGM 2.0 in the first place, so why not have a file produced by a CAD system in the test suite? Having said that however, it would be nice if the NURBS/other ratio were a little higher. I guess that I could go either way on that one. Rob -----Original Message----- From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 9:00 AM To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] second NURBS test I have integrated and uploaded the proposed second NURBS test (from Forrest) to FTP. It consists of the three files: NURBS02.cgm NURBS02.htm NURBS02.png Personally, I like this as our second NURBS test. As the attached MetaCheck trace shows, it contains 28 NURBS, all of have a significant amount of data. It also contains filled NURBS (in a Closed Figure). I think the only potential criticism would be "you can do that with Beziers". But we're not assessing and arguing the requirement here (reqt. is agreed), we're demonstrating and testing it. By comparison, I have also uploaded the earlier proposal, that we discussed yesterday -- a Catia output (from Dave). In 340K of CGM data, it contains only a half-dozen or so NURBS. NURBS02-dc.cgm NURBS02-dc.htm NURBS02-dc.png Btw, I know that two viewers pass the proposed new NURBS02 test. Thoughts? -Lofton.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]