Subject:
|
Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 04:19:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
842 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f6c258.270062819@lugnet.com>...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 14:15:02 GMT, "Gary Williams" <graywolf@pcpros.net>
> wrote:
>
> > My LDraw folder has seven DAT files with '0 CW*', none with '0 CCW*', and • 30
> > with '0 not CW*'.
> >
> > The seven '0 CW*' files are:
> >
> > ...
> > PARTS\578.DAT
> >
> > Note that 578.DAT contains a suspicious comment :)
>
> 578 is compliant because it contains *only* subfile references, which have
> been verified to not mess up (C)CW-ness. But that doesn't mean the
> *subfiles* are compliant. It also assumes the compliant subfiles are
> oriented the way the author (me) expected them: cylinders' surfaces facing
> outward, disc facing upward.
Does that mean if a program would find the CW directive it can assume that
every-thing in this file is compliant? E.g. the program would not have to
test if possible included parts are compliant, but assume that they are
since the parent is complient. I understand that this would be valid when
drawing the specific compliant part only, not if the included part is used
in a different part which is not compliant!
Mike
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
| Michael Lachmann wrote in message ... (...) Here's my take on the matter. The meta-command: 0 FACE <CW|CCW|DS|UNKNOWN> ...should only be used to indicate the order of the vertices of the polygons _in the file that contains it_. If A.dat has a '0 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
56 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
|
|
|
|
