 | | Re: Line in the Sand [DAT]
|
| Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote... (...) (snip) (...) Why? Are you thinking about 1 16 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1-4disc.dat The determinant is zero, which BTW causes POVRay to halt ("singular matrix"). L3P has to fix these matrices or POVRay would not render (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Matrix-inversions are not evil. But for some reason, using them to actually invert subfiles is evil (as opposed to using INVERTNEXT to invert subfiles). If I reallly needed an answer to this, I'd go read past messages. But I *do* remember: a) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve Bliss wrote ... (...) Is this a joke? You argue very well in "Inversion" in "Language Extension Functionality" about the 3D tube ;-) /Lars Sorry if I missed a pun. (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) I do, it's because of those cases like an hollow cylindir DAT file is referenced by another DAT file. Since the cylinder is supposed to be define outwards, but you can use it to make the inside/outside of a stud (for example) and the if the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Nope, not a joke. I seriously didn't remember the reason(s) why other approaches wouldn't work as well as INVERTNEXT. I poked around old messages a little bit, I think I remember better now. Let me (attempt to) explain: When this whole BFC (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
