 | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT —Steve Bliss
|
| | | On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:15:40 GMT, Rui Martins <Rui.Martins@link.pt> wrote: Follow-up note: the more I look at this, the more I like using WINDING / CLIPPING instead of FACE. For reasons listed by Rui, for more flexibility, for the ability to enable (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | (...) I don't need the WINDING UNKNOWN, since it's redundant with CLIPPING OFF. When clipping is OFF you don't care the state of the winding. I am curious, what is CLIPPING -1 ? an UNKNOWN, CLIPPING when not found is assumed as OFF (the safe side), (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I put in WINDING UNKNOWN because it explicitly states that the winding is unknown (and probably bad). This way, you can effectively disable clipping for a particular section of (unchecked) code, without having to force clipping back on at the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT —Gary Williams
|
| | | | Isn't a CLIPPING tag redundant? Programs should always clip when drawing an opaque part, and never clip when drawing a transparent part. -Gary (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Nope, CLIPPING is not redundant; using CLIPPING and WINDING is another way of accomplishing what we've been discussing with the FACE meta-statement. See Rui's description in the root-message of this thread. Also, clipping should not be (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
