 | | Re: Several replies to CLIPPING / WINDING —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | Rui Martins wrote in message ... (...) I am trying to find out when to actually start clipping. You say "every .DAT file which has tris or quads is a candidate for CLIPPING", but when can a program use that info? Would you require an unbroken chain (...) (25 years ago, 19-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Several replies to CLIPPING / WINDING —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | (...) By candidate, I meant, someone could optiomize it, a place a 0 CLIPPING ON meta-command on it, and get some benefit. If you use enable clipping, but you have no graphic primitives in your file (assuming clipping is stryctly local), than you (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Several replies to CLIPPING / WINDING —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) That's not true. If a super-file is not certified, then there's no way to tell if the subfile is normal or inverted. So when a file is referenced by a non-certified super-file, it can't be clipped, even if the referenced file is certified. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Several replies to CLIPPING / WINDING —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | (...) This is a problem of the current design (the one beeing used now). You didn't knew in the past, because you didn't have the 0 INVERT meta-command. So you can only assume it' NOT inverted. If for some reason, it is inverted, then the old .DAT (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Several replies to CLIPPING / WINDING —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) No. With current files, you don't know, so you can't assume anything. (...) No, inversions are common. (...) Right. So non-wound-up files can't be backface culled. I don't see what you're getting at here. (...) But we don't get to specify what (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Several replies to CLIPPING / WINDING —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, you are right here. I allways think in some form of winding (CW or CCW) so this one slipped me, once again sorry, you are right. Can't assume nothing. (...) what I said was relative to my way of thinking, without the previous sentence, (...) (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
