 | | Re: Freeware LEGO Software in an German Computer magazine
|
|
(...) That's great! Um, is there a way to get an English translation of the article? -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 Bumper Sticker: 'I'd punch you in the face, but [poo] splatters.' (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes: [Snipped] (...) Hmmm, hmmm, that might actually work, but I think it's just a tiny bit more complicated as you think. Please keep in mind that there are track parts implicitly intended for either the 4.5 V (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Freeware LEGO Software in an German Computer magazine
|
|
Ardjan: (...) Cool! I have to keep an eye on the server statistics now. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) Right. But that happens at rendering time, not in the description language. (...) I knew that. ;) (...) LOL Steve (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
Isn't a CLIPPING tag redundant? Programs should always clip when drawing an opaque part, and never clip when drawing a transparent part. -Gary (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote in message <939391242.591663@ns.cci.dk>... (...) benefit. (...) I'm not sure I follow. The rendering engine will always assume an implied INVERT whenever it encounters a negative orientation matrix determinant to cancel the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I put in WINDING UNKNOWN because it explicitly states that the winding is unknown (and probably bad). This way, you can effectively disable clipping for a particular section of (unchecked) code, without having to force clipping back on at the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) No, when I look at the images I see real alpha-blended surfaces :) I've tried to turn backface culling in the transparent parts and they looked very ugly, it's better to draw everything in those cases. (...) Just a note to correct the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
(...) My 12V trains don't move when I put them on the 4.5V-only track :) Now seriously, maybe we could drop the "4.5" from the name and replace it with "old" but I don't think it's going to be a good idea. Of course we'd have to keep the current (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
