Subject:
|
Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:21:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1751 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Kyle McDonald writes:
> 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
Hi Kyle,
Also seems correct to me.
Regards,
Damien
|
|
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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
