|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
