|
|
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve Bliss wrote... (...) the (...) allow (...) OFF (...) they (...) reference (...) CLIPPING (...) Good point! (...) Or you could write: 0 CERTIFY BFC | 0 CERTIFY NOBFC 0 WINDING CW | 0 WINDING CCW | 0 WINDING UNKNOWN (I don't think "0 WINDING" (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) I'll make these changes. I think all your points have been discussed in follow-up messages, so I'll make my responses (if there are any) to those later messages. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) As Jacob said, this is why the specification suggests that rendering programs allow the user to select the option of defaulting CLIPPING to on or off. (...) Huh? In that case, the uncertified primitive is not back-face-culled, but the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Yes. WINDING UNKNOWN allows a DAT author to specify what is happening in the file more precisely than CLIPPING OFF. Adding WINDING DOUBLE-SIDED would allow even more author-precision, but there is no practical difference between DOUBLE-SIDED (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) You'll pardon me if I use an abbreviated notation, and skip the " characters. (...) It's hard to argue with that. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Yes, and 'may' is more more correct than 'should', since the "Rendering Engine Requirements" section really is included just to provide a framework for the language extensions. The document specifies the input, and we have a general (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Update 9906?
|
| (...) Not too many all at once! At least on the first go-round. After that, the more, the merrier! :) (...) Yay, Terry! (...) Terry has sent me a copy of everything he has received, post 99-06. He is also going to forward future mail to me. New part (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Problem with the LDraw Parts Tracker
|
| Hello all, Boys and girs, I'm having a problem with the LDraw Parts Tracker. The link towards the "Tracked Parts" page still works, although only the text part of the page comes up. I don't get the seegreen background I've been used to see there (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| [ Still discussing (URL) ] Rui: (...) Yes, but generally it is no big deal to certify a model file - and there is the suggested option for the renderers mentioned further down for the lazy. (...) Yes, but we aren't all that stupid. We will of cause (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Update 9906?
|
| Great news to see things moving again - many thanks, Steve. A great motivation for me to get those parts off the "drawing board" and into DAT files. Many, many thanks are due to Terry for all his hard work, adjudication and perseverance in the past. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
