 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
Lars mentions the problem of "uncertified" parts using "certified" primitives. Is it so much of a problem? <much thinking> I can't find any other easy solution than using different names for the "certified" versions of the _primitives_. That way we (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
Gary Williams wrote in message ... (...) Well, inside/outside-ness also counts. It doesn't make sense to certify a part before ALL its subfiles have defined what is inside/outside. Until then you cannot determine whether or not you need any INVERTS. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
|
Gary Williams wrote in message ... (...) I agree with Gary that mirroring should not turn subfiles inside-out. The rendering program should correct (C)CW-ness by looking at the transformation. Part authors should use the INVERT for explicitly (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Gary Williams wrote in message ... (...) Well, my assumption was that CCW was the default and that the current facing was passed to the subfile. Under these circumstances I think that my two examples are equivalent! But I admit that the idea that (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I believe this is incorrect, no? ALL transparent surfaces should appear, if only to make a contribution to the color that underlying surfaces appear to be (consider a trans blue surface in front of a trans yellow in front of a white... ) (...) (25 years ago, 7-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
