 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) Yes, rendering programs should have these reasonable options. But I think it is safe to start clipping from opaque certified parts. (...) Parts are objects with obvious orientation. You are not in doubt what is (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Next MLCad Release
|
|
Michael Lachmann <m.lachmann@xpoint.at> wrote in <FJKv2r.IFs@lugnet.com>: (...) Sounds great! I've been using MLCad for a while, keep up the great work! Right now I'm working on some animations and dat2dxf isn't really giving me what I need so, how (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Next MLCad Release
|
|
(...) Man, I _JUST_ downloaded 1.4 tonight. Too cool and kudos for the quick and continual updates. (...) How about the ability to save in LDraw format as well as MLCad format. This would really be cool for people who want to share their DAT files (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Next MLCad Release
|
|
Hy all MLCad-Fans Since the discussion about the vertex things still is ongoing, I plan to do the following now. I'll release version 1.5 within the next days, this version will have a landscape generator and a picture generator (don't ask what it (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
|
<slrn806rtr.6kl.cjc@...s.utk.edu> <38040341.B0CCD15D@voyager.net> <3804e2ee.530068915@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Which is "wrong", right? That is, it's the LDraw name, but not a (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Sure. But I also feel that it would make sense for rendering programs to give the user control, so that clipping can be set to default to off, or default to on, or to be totally disabled. (...) If a certified part-file can turn clipping on, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn wrote: <snipped it again!> Except I think you forgot the sleeper, or else I missed it. it's neither 12v or 4.5v so it ought to be Train Track Sleeper or Train Track Slotted Sleeper but I'm not sure which. (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Yes! Excellent compromise! It's got the key stuff up front and the fact that not all parts are 4.5v specific or 9v specific comes out clearly. Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn wrote: <very nice work, all of which I snipped> (...) I'll say! :-) Now say (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes: [Snipped] (...) Hmmm, hmmm, that might actually work, but I think it's just a tiny bit more complicated as you think. Please keep in mind that there are track parts implicitly intended for either the 4.5 V (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) Right. But that happens at rendering time, not in the description language. (...) I knew that. ;) (...) LOL Steve (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Yes, this works for *new* models/submodels. Will you really require all existing models to go through a new good editing program, before they could benefit from backface-culling? I don't think that is necessary. Once an old model references a (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Understood and agreed. (...) Also, the primitive files will (generally) require less work than most part-files. [About introducing processing-by-file-type] (...) Yes, if they didn't have a 0 CLIPPING ON directive. That's why I said a good (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Snipped most of a well thought out posting. (...) I agree with your ordering, and tapered is a better descriptor than rounded. Where I differ is in the use of 4.5 V, 12 V and 9 V in the naming. While I don't think gen 1, 2 or 3 are good, these (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Hello all, This mail contains answers to Jacob Sparre Andersen, Larry Pieniazek and Chris Dee . (...) The track supplement sets 7850 (straight, containing parts #3228 and #4166) and 7851 (curved, containing parts #3229, #3230 and #4166) where (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I once asked the same question :) Most OpenGL drivers have part of the rendering code create at runtime instead of having if/else statements for all the possible flags. When you change the state, the driver has to rebuild the code again and (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) Do you know the reason why? The change-state-calls could cost a little overhead, but don't they just set some flags? And these flags would just cause negating an orientation test? /Lars (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Gary Williams skrev i meddelelsen ... (...) vertices. (...) Right, a file should not bother whether subfiles use CCW or CW or none. But it should know the orientation (inside/outside-definition) of the subfiles. (...) I agree. /Lars (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Yes, you can of course settle for checking only the tris/quads of a file and put UNKNOWN around subfile references. But then you would miss the most important speed boost coming from the primitives, which are responsible for the majority of (...) (25 years ago, 9-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
(...) I fear I am about to be inconsistent with something I said before... but maybe what we are trying to distinguish with 4.5v and 9v is confusing us. 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen would work... if we can't come up with something better. But what if we use (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Leonardo: (...) Neither do mine. - But they don't move on the so-called 12V track either. :) (...) So am I (but then we can't discuss :). (...) Makes sense. (...) The stuff we mostly use for 9V trains. Actually I like to use 2nd and 3rd generation (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
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: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote in message <939391242.591663@ns.cci.dk>... (...) benefit. (...) I'm not sure I follow. The rendering engine will always assume an implied INVERT whenever it encounters a negative orientation matrix determinant to cancel the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) No, when I look at the images I see real alpha-blended surfaces :) I've tried to turn backface culling in the transparent parts and they looked very ugly, it's better to draw everything in those cases. (...) Just a note to correct the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
(...) My 12V trains don't move when I put them on the 4.5V-only track :) Now seriously, maybe we could drop the "4.5" from the name and replace it with "old" but I don't think it's going to be a good idea. Of course we'd have to keep the current (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) touche'! (...) Not exactly! If the color has any transparency, force CLIPPING OFF, irrespective of what the file TAGS inform. (SIDE NOTE) when using the tag 0 CLIPPING ON you are not informing the program that it MUST do clipping, but instead (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
(...) I think that the ideia here is: - Assume any file you reference as CCW WINDING (assuming CCW as default) - Assume any file as it's polygonal faces facing outward (if applicable) - Every time you want a diferent orientation, just use the INVERT (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
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
|
|
(...) No, thank you! (...) I don't know if I knew you knew that, but I was almost positive you knew that. And I knew most everyone else knew that, but I wasn't sure absolutely everyone knew that. ;) (...) Right. New programs may handle transparency (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I was just pointing out that the clippability of transparent surfaces is a feature of the rendering program, and shouldn't be assumed in the description language. Steve (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
(...) Checking the order of points in a file should not depend on checking the inversion or subfiles for the file. That's why we've been talking about the 0 FACE UNKNOWN -- so parts of files can be fixed, even if the entire file can't be addressed. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Gary Williams wrote in message ... (...) "...not dependent on any other file..." Well, I hope you agree that files depend on the inside/outside-definition of subfiles? Otherwise a file wouldn't know whether or not to use the INVERT. /Lars (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comprehensive meta-command list
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote in message <939367581.966085@ns.cci.dk>... (...) In addition to being easier to comprehend, it has the advantage that each part and primitive file only has to concern itself with its own vertex order, and is not dependent on (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
Rui Martins wrote in message ... (...) You mean six of one, half a dozen of the other. :) (...) it (...) Using 0 FACE CW|CCW|DS|UNKNOWN will also keep backward compatibility. Either way though, some quadrilaterals will need to be manually tweaked (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Manfred: (...) Why is it labeled "4.5V"? It works quite fine for 12V trains too (just to make sure we get a long discussion :-). (...) Yes. We might want to remember the 12V power tracks too. (...) Actually I distinguish between "unpowered", "12V", (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Track parts naming scheme survey
|
|
Hello all We have another fine naming issue on our hand, which is always good for a lively discussion tread :-) The issue is about the parts from the group "Train Track 4.5V". I believe two different types are known here: 1- the oldest "Blue" type (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ... (...) Certified primitives are harmless when used by old uncertified parts, so there's no need to create special certified versions. And in stead of fixing parts to reference the new names, you might just (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
|
(...) I agree with this. (...) that' wright, a program supporting transparent colors correctly (using alpha blending) would do this just wright. A 3D card here would do wounders ! (did I spell that wright?) (...) Agreeing again! Rui Martins (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
