Subject:
|
Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:37:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
865 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:02:26 GMT, "Lars C. Hassing" <lch@ccieurope.com>
wrote:
> Then STUD2.DAT could use:
> 0 CCW
> 1 16 0 -4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4-4cyli.dat
> 0 CW
> 1 16 0 -4 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 4-4cyli.dat
Why not simply:
> 1 16 0 -4 0 -4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4-4cyli.dat
> 1 16 0 -4 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 4-4cyli.dat
Assuming the primitives are all defined so their faces are turned outward.
I would see allowing both CW and CCW as a convenience for parts authors.
There's no real difference between one way and the other.
CW has a slight advantage because it's 33% shorter to write, and it doesn't
confuse those "anti-clockwise" people. ;-)
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB)
|
| Steve: (...) Because our clever rendering programs will notice that the first transformation matrix has negative determinant, and therefore will swap the CW and CCW checks. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
