 | | 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)
|
