|
|
 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
| (...) Yes, this works for *new* models/submodels. Will you really require all existing models to go through a new good editing program, before they could benefit from backface-culling? I don't think that is necessary. Once an old model references a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
