 | | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f6c258.270062819@...et.com>... (...) 30 (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command —Gary Williams
|
| | | | | 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | Gary Williams: (...) Very sensible (now that Steve has convinced me). (...) Hmm. I don't like it, but we have already abbreviated (counter)clockwise, so it does make sense to abbreviate double-sided too. :-( Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command —Gary Williams
|
| | | | | | | Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) I was just trying to be consistent...:) I'd be just as happy if they were all spelled-out. But I'd like to avoid supporting both abbreviations and the complete spelling. Every additional test that (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Recognizing multiple forms of the command shouldn't add much to rendering. Each file can be parsed once, and then the post-parsing results cached, for later re-reference. The FACE meta-command would be stored as an opcode and a single (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Why not recognize it all ways: 0 FACE ACW 0 FACE ANTICLOCKWISE 0 FACE CCW 0 FACE CLOCKWISE 0 FACE COUNTERCLOCKWISE 0 FACE CW 0 FACE DOUBLESIDED 0 FACE DS 0 FACE UNKNOWN This adds a bit to the parser, but not so much. The recommended standard (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command —Gary Williams
|
| | | | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f8c4a9.238320530@...et.com>... (...) Well, I have nothing against anticlockwise, but it's redundant. Seeing ACW where one expects CW or CCW may confuse some people. I checked the dictionary because I honestly didn't (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Hidden surface removal, and vertex order in part/primitive DAT files —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) No (like Gary said). Two reasons: 1. The 0 FACE directive would be an operative switch, not a global setting. This is convenient, but it is also necessary in some cases. Most importantly, it would allow the 0 FACE meta-statement to appear (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
