 | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f8c4a9.238320530@...et.com>... (...) Well, I have nothing against anticlockwise, but it's redundant. Seeing ACW where one expects CW or CCW may confuse some people. I checked the dictionary because I honestly didn't (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Paul Gyugyi: [ kind of announced the next LDLite version ] Cool. Jacob (who should try to get LDLite to run on Linux) ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track names (was Re: To Tore Eriksson)
|
|
(...) 4555? (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
John VanZwieten wrote in message ... (...) Actually, I count three ideas. (...) messy. (...) when (...) the (...) to (...) only (...) have (...) in (...) CW (...) slightly (...) for (...) The third option, which I believe would be best, is similar (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f8c86b.239282689@...et.com>... (...) But more often than not, when mirroring an element or subassembly, it's not the intent of the author to turn it inside out. Typical model builders shouldn't concern themselves (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Paul Gyugyi wrote in message <37F8CE0C.13D582C9@g...yi.com>... (...) Cool! This could be very handy. I'll add it to the DAT format page I'm writing. -Gary (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote in message <939050465.592693@ns.cci.dk>... (...) True. But when manually examining a file, if you come across a 0 INVERT you wouldn't know whether this was the beginning or the end of the inverted references, without a bit of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex [DAT]
|
|
It seems to me that there are two major "camps" in the CW/CCW debate. A. Face-by-Face Method This method suggests that CW-ness be ultimately evaluated on a face-by-face basis. Each quad in a primitive or part would hold a value of CW,CCW, or (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
(...) True. '0 INVERT END' may be allowed as a syntactic convenience to authors. Or 0 INVERT could be rewritten as 0 INVERT [ON|OFF|TOGGLE] where TOGGLE would be the default action. (...) [example snipped] 0 INVERT is different from 0 FACE [CW|CCW] (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
(...) Hooray! :) (...) Hooray! :) Steve (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
Jacob: (...) Steve: (...) Jacob: (...) It happens every once in awhile. Actually, which approach *would* be better? Examining the transformation matrix to determine the state of inversion, and adjusting the CW/CCW setting to correct for it, would (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
|
(...) Recognizing multiple forms of the command shouldn't add much to rendering. Each file can be parsed once, and then the post-parsing results cached, for later re-reference. The FACE meta-command would be stored as an opcode and a single (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files [DAT]
|
|
(...) Forgot the footnote: 1- There's an interesting distinction between 'valid' and 'well-formed' contructions. LDraw will allow line-breaks as whitespace in commands, so: 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3001.dat is valid, but it's not well-formed. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Steve: (...) Yes. (...) Yes. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Track names (was Re: To Tore Eriksson)
|
|
(...) I'm curious Chris, in what sets was that the case ? And do these gray ones have those "negative" tapered ends, just like the old blue track had ? In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes: (...) Gimme a set number for "the wildwest miningish" (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
(...) Yes, they do. In the example above, the first meta-command, 0 TRANSLATE 20 0 0, would persist until the end of the file. (...) I think I know the answer to this question, but just to be sure: is the 0 INVERT meta-command transparent to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
(...) I've been thinking the exact opposite -- mirroring should be a valid method for turning subfiles inside-out, and the software doesn't need to do anything special to deal with it (except to notice the inversion, and pass that info on to the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
|
(...) Why not recognize it all ways: 0 FACE ACW 0 FACE ANTICLOCKWISE 0 FACE CCW 0 FACE CLOCKWISE 0 FACE COUNTERCLOCKWISE 0 FACE CW 0 FACE DOUBLESIDED 0 FACE DS 0 FACE UNKNOWN This adds a bit to the parser, but not so much. The recommended standard (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) No (like Gary said). Two reasons: 1. The 0 FACE directive would be an operative switch, not a global setting. This is convenient, but it is also necessary in some cases. Most importantly, it would allow the 0 FACE meta-statement to appear (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
|
(...) That's what we're doing now--figuring out what the standard should be. Both the function and the syntax. But "standard" is an odd term in this case. In my mind the LDraw standard is defined as "code which is recognized and interpreted by (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
