| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > I apologize if my explanation is unclear, but I can attest to the
> > effectiveness of the method, because I've used it dozens of times
> > for model files and for new partfiles. Let me know if you'd like
> > clarification on any point.
>
> This is silly. Just put the structure you want to mirror in a
> subfile and do this.
>
> 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 subfile.ldr
> 1 0 320 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 subfile.ldr
>
> You can do it in ldglite using the scale by (-1,1,1) command (just
> like in POV). Then use your favorite CAD program to position the part
> and it's mirror wherever you want them. If you like, inline them
> both. That'll generate pictures that look correct. The only problem
> will be if you use the LDR file to generate an inventory list and you
> have distinct left and right parts like wing plates.
Won't that cause all of the LEGO logo on all of the studs in the mirrored parts
to be reversed? I thought that part of the point of the question was to avoid
that. I think that measures are being taken to correct the mirrored-logo issue,
but I'd prefer a more organic solution instead. YMMV.
Also, no kidding you can create a sub-file and do a matrix switcheroo to mirror
it, but what if you want to have slight modifications to each of the four castle
towers? Your method won't help at all in that case, unless you wanted to create
four separate sub-files, altering each as desired, and then inlining them, but
that doesn't seem an appreciably better solution that what I proposed. Using my
method, the whole mirrored tower is accessible for modification, and you don't
have to worry about mirroring any complex structures, since you'll be building
them in true orientation.
While I'm at it, your method will certainly work to an extent, but the method I
described has the benefit of functioning without inlined sub-files, and it works
just as well it partfiles or model files.
If this method seems silly to you, may I suggest that you not use it?
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
[snip]
> If this method seems silly to you, may I suggest that you not use it?
Bad choice of words "silly". Sorry about that, but he asked for a
"quick" way to do it. He used the word "quick" twice in fact. But
everyone seemed intent on providing a thorough, but complex method
without first telling the quick and dirty way. There are plenty of
newbies out there who don't know it.
Have fun,
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> [snip]
> > If this method seems silly to you, may I suggest that you not use it?
>
> Bad choice of words "silly". Sorry about that, but he asked for a
> "quick" way to do it. He used the word "quick" twice in fact. But
> everyone seemed intent on providing a thorough, but complex method
> without first telling the quick and dirty way. There are plenty of
> newbies out there who don't know it.
Fair enough--I guess "quick" is in the eye of the beholder. 8^)
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Won't that cause all of the LEGO logo on all of the studs in the mirrored parts
> to be reversed? I thought that part of the point of the question was to avoid
If this bothers you, a partial solution is here:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=9067
While the results from running the program aren't really appropriate for
distribution to others, you can at least do your own POV renderings (as long as
you don't use -lgeo). Additionally, the stud logos should always look correct
in both LDView and LDGLite, since both programs automatically detect mirrored
studs and un-mirror them.
--Travis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> [snip]
> > If this method seems silly to you, may I suggest that you not use it?
>
> Bad choice of words "silly". Sorry about that, but he asked for a
> "quick" way to do it. He used the word "quick" twice in fact. But
> everyone seemed intent on providing a thorough, but complex method
> without first telling the quick and dirty way. There are plenty of
> newbies out there who don't know it.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Don
I didn't necessarily mean quick, I meant easy. Hey, I'm lazy. ;-)
I like both answers because you gave me what I needed to know to accomplish the
task quickly, Dave gave me what I needed to know to understand what I'm doing!
Carl
|
|
|
