 | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) Do you know the reason why? The change-state-calls could cost a little overhead, but don't they just set some flags? And these flags would just cause negating an orientation test? /Lars (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Gary Williams skrev i meddelelsen ... (...) vertices. (...) Right, a file should not bother whether subfiles use CCW or CW or none. But it should know the orientation (inside/outside-definition) of the subfiles. (...) I agree. /Lars (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Yes, you can of course settle for checking only the tris/quads of a file and put UNKNOWN around subfile references. But then you would miss the most important speed boost coming from the primitives, which are responsible for the majority of (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
(...) I fear I am about to be inconsistent with something I said before... but maybe what we are trying to distinguish with 4.5v and 9v is confusing us. 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen would work... if we can't come up with something better. But what if we use (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Leonardo: (...) Neither do mine. - But they don't move on the so-called 12V track either. :) (...) So am I (but then we can't discuss :). (...) Makes sense. (...) The stuff we mostly use for 9V trains. Actually I like to use 2nd and 3rd generation (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
