 | | Re: Female Ldraw Parts
|
|
(...) So then, the parts referred to upthread fit that definition? That's part of what I am confused about. Do these exist in real life or not? (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] Wrapping up 2002-02
|
|
All the Horse files, and most of the primitives updated with BFC'ness, are now certified! The one primitive not yet certified is p\48\1-4ndis.dat, but it is not the sole hold-up for any files. Over the next few days, I'll be working on getting the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Female Ldraw Parts
|
|
(...) Larry, You are correct. The term "unofficial file/part/subfile/[whatever]" does in fact mean "not yet released" or "not yet approved for release". To the best of my understanding, we've made no provision for any part that does not truly exist. (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Actually, transparent surface should work fine. As long as they are set to write to the Z buffer when drawn, and their outlines are drawn with Z buffer testing enabled, they should work fine. The wireframe parts that aren't supposed to be (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) One problem: transparent surfaces would show the wireframe backside. :\ Steve (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Baseplates with pattern
|
|
(...) I suppose that would be a problem. It would be more of a problem, if stud-logos were part of LDraw. It would also be more of a problem, if this were a smaller part. By the time people get to using 32x32 baseplates, they aren't usually looking (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Baseplates with pattern
|
|
(...) Not unless the subparts would be used multiple times within the part file. Just put the code for the painted studs in the part file. Steve (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: new axle hole (part two)
|
|
(...) Yes, yes you do. I believe you have the descriptions for 4 and 5 reversed. :-) 2 - (and so do I) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: new axle hole (part two)
|
|
(...) Lack of planning, I think. ;) Seriously, the axleholes are more complex than most other types of primitives, and presented in different ways in LEGO bricks. So there's a need for more variations. Just for fun,[1] I put together a gallery of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: new axlehole (part1)
|
|
(...) [snipped DAT code] Mark, Is this primitive supposed to be a substantially different profile than axleho11.dat? Other than splitting it into two different files. (URL) Steve (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
