Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:54:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote ...
> > I don't remember *why* INVERTNEXT is needed. But I am sure it is needed.
>
> Is this a joke? You argue very well in "Inversion" in "Language Extension
> Functionality" about the 3D tube ;-)
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 discussion started, I thought the best way to invert
subfiles was to negate the orientation matrix.
Later in the discussion, it became apparent to me that using the orientation
matrix was not a workable way to deal with inversion. Other people realized
this from the start, I think.
As I remember, the only other suggested approach to inverted objects was to have
two sets of primitives; one set with normal orientation, the other set inverted.
This is actually a workable solution, but limits the power of the LDraw
language, and requires somebody to *write* all the inverterd-primitive files.
So INVERTNEXT is our best solution to the problem.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
