 | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) Nope, CLIPPING is not redundant; using CLIPPING and WINDING is another way of accomplishing what we've been discussing with the FACE meta-statement. See Rui's description in the root-message of this thread. Also, clipping should not be (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Understood and agreed. (...) Also, the primitive files will (generally) require less work than most part-files. [About introducing processing-by-file-type] (...) Yes, if they didn't have a 0 CLIPPING ON directive. That's why I said a good (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Snipped most of a well thought out posting. (...) I agree with your ordering, and tapered is a better descriptor than rounded. Where I differ is in the use of 4.5 V, 12 V and 9 V in the naming. While I don't think gen 1, 2 or 3 are good, these (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Hello all, This mail contains answers to Jacob Sparre Andersen, Larry Pieniazek and Chris Dee . (...) The track supplement sets 7850 (straight, containing parts #3228 and #4166) and 7851 (curved, containing parts #3229, #3230 and #4166) where (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I once asked the same question :) Most OpenGL drivers have part of the rendering code create at runtime instead of having if/else statements for all the possible flags. When you change the state, the driver has to rebuild the code again and (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
