RE: [cgmo-webcgm] second NURBS test

[Robert Orosz <roboro@AUTO-TROL.com>]

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.