Subject:
|
Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:46:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
412 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> > Um... Not to stir the pot or anything but I was reading the BFC proposal on
> > your website and noticed that the BFC specification says that all primitves
> > must be certified CCW. Did this get revised via discussion and not updated?
For starters, I recently tried to track down the BFC specification but
couldn't find it (on ldraw.org or on Steve's site). Could someone post the
link please?
> At this point, I'm as inclined to delete the clause from the spec as to
> keep it (and modify the primitives specified as CW).
If it doesn't matter from a performance perspective, I vote you kill the clause.
--
Tony Hafner
www.hafhead.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
| (...) (URL) (...) I think the only way it would matter for performance is if we decided that the *entire* library would be CW or CCW, and so rendering programs wouldn't have to check the winding direction at all. And that would be a very small (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
| (...) There was some discussion whether one winding was better or not. Not limited to primitives, just in general. I think I arbitrarily put in the clause about all primitives being CCW, mostly to promote consistency, but also partly to see if it (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
