 | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Manfred: (...) Why is it labeled "4.5V"? It works quite fine for 12V trains too (just to make sure we get a long discussion :-). (...) Yes. We might want to remember the 12V power tracks too. (...) Actually I distinguish between "unpowered", "12V", (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Hello all We have another fine naming issue on our hand, which is always good for a lively discussion tread :-) The issue is about the parts from the group "Train Track 4.5V". I believe two different types are known here: 1- the oldest "Blue" type (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) Certified primitives are harmless when used by old uncertified parts, so there's no need to create special certified versions. And in stead of fixing parts to reference the new names, you might just (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I agree with this. (...) that' wright, a program supporting transparent colors correctly (using alpha blending) would do this just wright. A 3D card here would do wounders ! (did I spell that wright?) (...) Agreeing again! Rui Martins (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) Thanks! (...) I knew that ! ;) (...) LDraw doesn't, but this specification is for new Programs which are backwards compatible with Ldraw, but with a bunch of new enhancements. Check the instructions of any LEGO MODEL and you will see an (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
