Subject:
|
is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:16:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1713 times
|
| |
|
|
I've been working on the BFC code in my application, and well, either
I need to go to bed now (which is probably true either way :) or
the BOX5.DAT primitive slipped into the last update with wrong-way
wound quad.
Am I reading this right?
> 0 Box 5 (five faces)
> 0 Name: box5.dat
> 0 Author: James Jessiman
> 0 Original LDraw Primitive
> 0 LDRAW_ORG Primitive UPDATE 2002-02
>
> 0 BFC CERTIFY CW
>
> 0 2002-04-03 SEB Modified for BFC compliance
>
> 2 24 1 1 1 -1 1 1
> 2 24 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1
> 2 24 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1
> 2 24 1 1 -1 1 1 1
> 2 24 1 0 1 -1 0 1
> 2 24 -1 0 1 -1 0 -1
> 2 24 -1 0 -1 1 0 -1
> 2 24 1 0 -1 1 0 1
> 2 24 1 0 1 1 1 1
> 2 24 -1 0 1 -1 1 1
> 2 24 1 0 -1 1 1 -1
> 2 24 -1 0 -1 -1 1 -1
This next quad seems to me to be wound CCW not CW like the
0 BFC CERTIFY statement says? no?
> 4 16 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1
> 4 16 1 1 1 1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 1 1
> 4 16 -1 1 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 1 -1
> 4 16 -1 1 -1 -1 0 -1 1 0 -1 1 1 -1
> 4 16 1 1 -1 1 0 -1 1 0 1 1 1 1
> 0
-Kyle
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
| (...) [snip] (...) No, it's correct. Keep in mind that this polygon forms the *bottom* of the box, so it is facing downward. In the default view, you will actually be looking at the backside of this quad. Imagine being under the primitive, and (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
