| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Christian Lindblad Rasmussen wrote:
| |
Would it be an advantege to use CCW throughout primitives, subparts and
parts?
Christian
|
If it’s not a whole lot of trouble, I would recommend it.
(The conversion can be made automatic, as long as the
individual files clearly state CW or CCW correctly.)
Speaking as a computer graphics professional, I can say for sure
that being consistent is always an advantage. If software authors
can assume that all primitives are CCW, then it makes programming
somewhat easier, and there is one less source of bugs. CW versus
CCW issues are a constant annoyance in graphics programming,
and it would be nice if the LDR database could stay clear of that.
Having a DAT file state its convention, CW or CCW, was a good
and much needed first step, but I see it as a reasonably simple
remedy for the previous lack of consistency, not as a satisfactory
final solution.
Stefan Gustavson
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | CCW vs CW
|
| The (URL) Language Extension for Clipping (BFC)> states in the Parts Library Guidelines section that Primitives should always use CCW winding. However some of the primitives use CW, for example (URL) rect.dat>. Should these be rewritten? Would it be (...) (20 years ago, 12-May-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
