 | | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files [DAT]
|
|
(...) 578 is compliant because it contains *only* subfile references, which have been verified to not mess up (C)CW-ness. But that doesn't mean the *subfiles* are compliant. It also assumes the compliant subfiles are oriented the way the author (me) (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f6c0d9.269680202@...et.com>... (...) Doh, you posted mere minutes before me and said the same thing. :) -Gary (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
Jean-Pierre PARIS wrote in message <37F660FB.1EC77AC9@w...doo.fr>... (...) I see where you're coming from now. You're right. (...) could (...) It's starting to sound like user intervention would be needed in most, if not all, cases. Maybe it would (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) This isn't automatic, but what if the program interrogates the user to pick a side which is facing outward? From that information, the program could then mark-up all adjacent sides. If the program ran out of sides, it could re-interrogate for (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) That works for me. I don't suppose there's an official standards-setting body of people charged with voting on extensions to the .dat format, is there? Maybe it's time to form one. -Gary (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
