Re: OpenGL - One of eight simple box drawings disappears ...
"R.Wieser" <[email protected]> Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:06:07 +0100
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-xp,alt.windows7.general,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Paul, > Have you considered feeding the source into an AI, and > asking whether your style of using Pushes and Pops is correct ? Nope. I'm not really willing to "listen" to something that can as easily halucinate as not. Also, I've been using the same style of pushing/popping in the same and several other programs. No problems there. > It is either that, or find some sample code on the web, with > similar intended function, and see what style they use. Using different code will quite likely make all the markers show up, but doesn't give me any reason to why the code I posted makes one - just one - diasappear. If its just the result I'm after I would just remove all the markers - I only added them for "debugging" (visual clues of the calculated corners). > Maybe after your GLBegin GLend, you need to restore the > grapical context, so the current cursor location is restored. I've shown in the code that its a marker somewhere in the middle, and no "cursor location" changes (translations, rotations, scaling) have been applied. IOW, if that one marker was moved off-screen than the next ones would have been moved too. And they aren't. Nor are the quads drawn after them (with its corners where the markers are) Also, before executing that bit of code I've got several other primitives drawn, all in their own glBegin / glEnd wrappers. No restoration of any kind there either. I've also called the same code a second time (with different coordinates) and it also misses the same marker. Moving the code to first or last executed doesn't change anything either. IOW, it seems to be something in the code I posted, but I'm unable to spot it (chances are that when I do find the reason it will be a "Well /ofcourse/ its doing that" 20-20 vision moment. Than again, perhaps not ...) Regards, Rudy Wieser