Subject:
|
Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:43:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2069 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Kyle McDonald wrote:
> 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. • [snip]
> 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
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
looking up at the quad. Then the vertices will appear CW.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
| 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? (...) This (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
