 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB) —Steve Bliss
| | | | (...) Why not simply: (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB) —Jacob Sparre Andersen
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB) —Steve Bliss
| | | | | (...) Jacob: (...) Why? Having a negative determinate *should* turn subfiles inside-out. IMO. That's a useful function. Having programs checking determinates is not useful, and wastes rendering time. Steve (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB) —Jacob Sparre Andersen
| | | | | Steve: (...) Hmm??? Yes you're right (again :-). Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 3-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex, (115kB) —Steve Bliss
| | | | | Jacob: (...) Steve: (...) Jacob: (...) It happens every once in awhile. Actually, which approach *would* be better? Examining the transformation matrix to determine the state of inversion, and adjusting the CW/CCW setting to correct for it, would (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | |
