 | | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) You know, it occurs to me that if MPD's were allowed as parts, it would be a GREAT place to put a texture file (properly hex encoded, no doubt). They're almost always single-part-only. And if one wanted better textures than "come standard?" (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Yeah, I know what's available at the low end of OpenGl. That's where I live. I was just trying to keep up the curmudgeonly atmosphere of this place with the whipper-snapper comment. Did I do it wrong? Oh well, at least there's still that gloss (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Absolutely. I wasn't advocating sticking 'public' subparts into the part's MPD. Just to be clear. Steve (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: *** MLCad V3.30 ***
|
|
(...) I've been surprised by some of this discussion of dithered colors, because when Foundry was created (not by me), it was done as a "clean room" project, based entirely off of specs, so it's the closest thing out there to a reference parser, and (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I like your thinking! :) But Shader Language programming is really more along the lines of what we'll need for the next step I'd like to see: gloss maps. Those will allow shiny paint on torsos (for instance) to shine in the light, making gold, (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:> Well, since the stippling pattern is just an artifact of the printing (...) Interesting. Not the response I was expecting. :) Back when I was building the first gradient example for the texture (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Yeah, I checked it out the first time it was mentioned. I even poked around in the LDView CVS archives for a few minutes looking for hints of the magic syntax before the Walled Garden stuff got posted. Looks very promising! I guess I'm finally (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Well, since the stippling pattern is just an artifact of the printing process, I'd say it's foolish to reproduce it. Some of the dots on the newer stippled gradients are so tiny I can't even see them without a huge magnifier (or maybe I just (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
First of all, let me say that while my previous post probably implied that I'm against allowing MPDs as parts, I am in fact still open to the possibility. I'm just not sure I'm completely convinced by the arguments given so far. (...) The only place (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) No one in his right mind would do this baseplate without using texture mapping. OK, Philo would, but I question that he's right in the head on a regular basis. :) Even so, the question would be, should one duplicate the nature of the stippling (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
