 | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) I was just trying to be consistent...:) I'd be just as happy if they were all spelled-out. But I'd like to avoid supporting both abbreviations and the complete spelling. Every additional test that (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
|
Gary Williams: (...) Very sensible (now that Steve has convinced me). (...) Hmm. I don't like it, but we have already abbreviated (counter)clockwise, so it does make sense to abbreviate double-sided too. :-( Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
|
Michael Lachmann wrote in message ... (...) Here's my take on the matter. The meta-command: 0 FACE <CW|CCW|DS|UNKNOWN> ...should only be used to indicate the order of the vertices of the polygons _in the file that contains it_. If A.dat has a '0 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) also (...) but (...) the (...) an (...) Is this the standard now, or at least could we make it the standard ???? Mike (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f6c258.270062819@...et.com>... (...) 30 (...) Does that mean if a program would find the CW directive it can assume that every-thing in this file is compliant? E.g. the program would not have to test if possible (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Group Idea
|
|
(...) I think Tore was only joking. (Note that he followed his comment with a B-) smiley...) --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) I really don't like programs that need user interactions for such job! Thus I tried to cast enough rays so that all the faces are being oriented correctly. Now all the std bricks are OK, without any assumption about the fact that they are (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) you should consider that there are a lot of such groups of sides in one brick! Thus, the approach described by Leonardo is better: (...) Now, my main problem is: how can I find enough time to translate and check all the bricks! I guess my (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) These operations nest, rather than override, if I read (URL) correctly. (...) I think that would be best. -Gary (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
Bram Lambrecht wrote in message <19991003.083644.509...no.com>... (...) No. Our software will detect mirror operations and correct for them. -Gary (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
(...) I mirror sub-parts often in my models (for hoses, wings, etc.). Would this require an INVERT? --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com ---...---oooo-----(_...o---...--- WWW: (URL) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
Steve: (...) Hmm??? Yes you're right (again :-). Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Gary Williams: (...) Yes, but I don't think they are well known anyway: 0 TITLE <description> is an alternative to just using the first line in a file for the description of the file. 0 NOFILE terminates a model in a MPD file (so does another FILE (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) Instead of asking the user, the program could first try to cast rays and then only if there are any faces left it asks the user. I've started writing my own converter and it worked correctly with the 'standard' bricks but had a few problems (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
I'm attempting to compile a list of all meta-commands...did I miss anything? Current (From the LDraw FAQ): 0 <description> If the first line of the file is a comment, it's assumed to be the description of the file. 0 STEP Used to indicate the end of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
