Subject:
|
Re: Color page updated
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:59:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
17436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > * Color 256-512 are *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* "MLCad colors". They are true LDraw
> > colors, as opposed to color 48-255. As any LDraw compatible L-Cad tool, also
> > MLCad accepts and fully supports color 256-512.
>
> Just to be clear: all colors from 0 to 511 (except 16 and 24) are true LDraw
> colors. For color codes less than 256, LDraw would use the lowest 4 bits to
> determine the color value. The sixth bit would determine transparency. The
> other bits were basically ignored.
Do you mean that original LDraw accepts color 48, 65, 133 without error message?
I didn't know that. Pity L3Lab (and L3P v1.3 which I no longer use)don't act
that way.
If so, I guess I stand corrected. And blushing.
But yet, with a little weaker support from historic facts, I still appeal (now
in a more humble way) not to use colors 48-255 for defining new colors in
LDConfig.ldr. Even on a borrowed PC with 2.5GHz CPU, LDView is totally
unaccepably slo-o-o-ow with no fast render options making any noticable
difference on huge models, so L3Lab is still my no. 1 everyday life renderer
without any competition.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Color page updated
|
| (...) Just to be clear: all colors from 0 to 511 (except 16 and 24) are true LDraw colors. For color codes less than 256, LDraw would use the lowest 4 bits to determine the color value. The sixth bit would determine transparency. The other bits were (...) (14 years ago, 4-Dec-09, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
28 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
|
|
|
|
