 | | 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)
|
