 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f4edd7.8510607@lu...et.com>... (...) are (...) rotated (...) thinking. (...) Possibly. I'm not to great when it comes to expressing myself. I think if an even number of mirror operations are performed on a part, its (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
(...) OIC now. I think. If an asymmetrical part is mirrored, it keeps the same shape, but is turned inside out. To get it right-side-out again, it must be re-mirrored. In other words, there's no way to produce left- and right-handed pairs of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
(...) Jacob: (...) Why? Having a negative determinate *should* turn subfiles inside-out. IMO. That's a useful function. Having programs checking determinates is not useful, and wastes rendering time. Steve (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) We're it. So to speak. Steve (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) Sorry, but I think that the even/odd algorithm only work on 'correct' solids. For example, if you take a 'bad' box made of 6 faces that have holes beween them, your algorithm can lit an inside face. And in some parts, such a situation exists. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
