|
 | | Re: stl2dat conversion tool beta2
|
| (...) Ok, my cad program can do that, but I have to mess with it because the options to tesselate a surface are somewhat complex, at least if you want to be able to have some control on the number of polys generated. Does STL allow only for (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|  
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Link to Sandcrawler pic?
|
| (...) every (...) That would be sacrilege! The thought of a Yoda scares me as well... I'd almost rather not have a Yoda mini-fig than have one that's as tall as Darth Vader. (...) Very good idea... Bryan (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Link to Sandcrawler pic?
|
| (...) every (...) That would be sacrilege! The thought of a Yoda scares me as well... I'd almost rather not have a Yoda mini-fig than have one that's as tall as Darth Vader. (...) Very good idea... Bryan (25 years ago, 12-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: stl2dat conversion tool beta2
|
| (...) Until here the ascii ART is correct, but from here on forward it's NOT, because the ascii art is representing a front view, and nothing tells you that poly [1 3 4 2] is coplanar with tri [3 6 4] In fact if you read the previous mails carefully (...) (25 years ago, 14-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: stl2dat conversion tool beta3
|
| (...) haven't eaten all weekend, cheesh, Boy was I ungry last Night. (...) OK. (...) Be carefull, with these merges, because every time you merge two polys, by a facet, you remove 1 or 2 points (tris or quads). And you can only due this if they are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: stl2dat conversion tool beta2
|
| (...) This should be one of your top priorities, since unwanted data only slows down the rendering programs. (...) Iep, but the valid values for the angle differ. (...) See my previous reply about merges ! (...) I don't think so ! Where have you (...) (25 years ago, 14-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: stl2dat conversion tool beta2
|
| (...) What I mean is : _ _ _______face a /b / /face / In that to apply a optional line you have: : (a) must be BIGGER tha (45) but : (b) must be LESSER than (90+45) Assumming both angles are positive, and that 45 is the reference angle we talk about (...) (25 years ago, 15-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: stl2dat conversion tool beta2
|
| (...) You are welcome, but if you require anything else, just say so. Note: I found out that my CAD program, when saving an stl file, actually gives a warning (opens dialog box) if there are any open surfaces in the design, but lets you save anyway, (...) (25 years ago, 16-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | MPD spec
|
| Is there such a thing ? The ones I have seen, are very simple, they just use the 0 FILE filename Meta command, but is there any docummented spec. Also, where is that program which splits an MPD in it's DAT parts ? MPDsplit.exe ? Both those things (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Sorry to only get back now. I have the following questions: - Which (inline) file in the (.mpd) file is considered the root of the model - First (would be my obvious choice) ? - Last ? - we have to find out which ? The previous question raises (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Correct link for previous message!
|
| Thanks Alan, Frontpage did that to me on a few of my links. I have no idea why. Anyhow, I'll go fix it (by manually typing the name of the page). Alan Gerber <foofoogood@hotmail....ed_e-mail> wrote in message news:Fr0w8C.8zz@lugnet.com... (...) goes (...) (25 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.publish)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) OK, I stand corrected ! (...) My NOTE had no intention to be ofensive. I'm sorry if you took it ofensively, that was NOT the intention. I also dislike windows, unfortunatly, some people (like me) are forced to try to work (sometimes it's (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I'm sorry bu this is NOT true ! Also my suggestion to the MPD format only assumes an implicit (0 FILE model.dat) at the begining of the file. so the processing is almost exactly the same as before. (...) The current (the one beeing used now) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Nice regular expression ! (...) There is NO problem with that, because, every mail/news reader supports the [uuencode] format and most support the [MIME] format. Maybe you just want to convert directly from a mail dump ? But that can easilly (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) So are you available to help define a better/improved Multi Part Dat format, not necessarilly with MPD extension ? By using your experience with the current MPD format ? including the splitter and Builder ! What would you improve ? Do you (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) OK! (...) Where is that documented ? Does it have parameters ? I personally, never heard about that Meta command ! Does a regular (extended) .DAT also suport this or is just an MPD specific meta command ? I think it's the later. [...SNIP. (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Also agree ! But, lets try to make everybody happy ! ;) (...) I don't quite agree with that, because this new format does not need to be just a way to gather a few DAT files, It can be a lot more, but without forgetting that it should be kept (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
|
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
| (...) And you like that don't you ? ;) If any one doesn't ! Don't read the rest of the mail ! (...) There we go again ! I saw this coming ! Why the hack do you assume things are stable as long as you agree with the supposed current status of them ? (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
link
(score: 1.817)
|
