 | | Re: surface normals and vertex normals for OpenGL —Don Heyse
|
| | | (...) I don't know about that goal. I think it's better to make it easy to assemble the various primitives into parts. That way we get more people volunteering to make the parts. I don't think the primitives *can* be closed. I also think it's much (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: surface normals and vertex normals for OpenGL —Wayne Gramlich
|
| | | | (...) All: It is dangerous to write technical arguments at 1:30 in the morning, and I made some serious mistakes in my post above. 1) You are correct that most LDRAW parts are not closed and probably never will be. Optimizing for ease of part (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: surface normals and vertex normals for OpenGL —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | I won't argue with your clarification, but I will point out that it would be more difficult for a renderer to perform this feat, particularly one that is designed as a real-time renderer, and therefore presumably has rather serious limitations on (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: surface normals and vertex normals for OpenGL —Wayne Gramlich
|
| | | | (...) With the use of a point hash table, it should be possible to do all of the analysis in linear time proprotional to the number of points in the object. So, I guess I disagree with you. Not that it particularly matters, until somebody actually (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
