 | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> At this point, we've come up with three possible options:
For what it counts, I'd go for:
* Explicitly disallow "dither" colors in all official parts, but allow RGB
colors (of the form 0x2RRGGBB) in their place in patterned/sticker parts.
This solution would give me the most freedom. I could just pick the RGB from a
picture/scan and use is without carrying if there is a dithered or brick color
somewhere.
My patterns/stickers: http://www.holly-wood.it/ldraw/authored-en.html (some
would benefit from RBGs if they would have been allowed in the past).
w.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> For what it counts, I'd go for:
>
> * Explicitly disallow "dither" colors in all official parts, but
> allow RGB colors (of the form 0x2RRGGBB) in their place in
> patterned/sticker parts.
>
> This solution would give me the most freedom. I could just pick the
> RGB from a picture/scan and use is without carrying if there is a
> dithered or brick color somewhere.
I'm not much of a part author, so my opinion probably counts for even
less than usual here, but I actually find myself agreeing with Willy
on a issue involving colors. That never happens! ;) But heck, who
can argue against freedom and simplicity?
Besides, I'd guess that there are probably zero programs where the
dithered colors look good (ie. not really dithered) and the 0x2RRGGBB
colors look bad (ie. not supported). So there's no downside to
selecting this over the first choice. And the third choice is simply
to restrictive for stickers.
The only thing I'd like to add is that maybe we should apply the rules
for printed parts when a sticker pattern is an exact match for a
printed part pattern.
> My patterns/stickers:
> http://www.holly-wood.it/ldraw/authored-en.html (some would benefit
> from RBGs if they would have been allowed in the past).
Have fun,
Don
| | | | | | |
