 | | Re: Trouble with POV 3.5
|
|
<snip> (...) Why are we trying to use Pov 3.5? What is computer user's *NEED* to have the latest and greatest? Does Pov 3.5 provide the LDraw rendering community anything NEW that 3.1 did not? Why go thru all the headaches of learning 3.5 when 3.1 (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: So what *IS* a Building Instruction anyway?
|
|
(...) If you get around to fixing it, then I would appreciate it, if you could seperate the code in operating system specific and non-operating system specific parts. Where is the syntax for the "SUB" meta-statements documented? Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It might. (...) I can see your point. And I must admit that the first category I would search for this part under would be "Train". - Which certainly implies that "train" at least should be a keyword for the part. (...) Sort of. In principle (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Trouble with POV 3.5
|
|
(...) Yeah, it has something to do with POV-Ray switching "versions" before loading colors.inc. I tried to delete the lines but didn't help much. Think Lars has to change the code in L3P a bit. I also expierenced errors in MegaPOV after installing (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Trouble with POV 3.5
|
|
Is anyone else having trouble getting POV-Ray 3.5 to work? I got some sort of error about macros in the colors.inc file. What does that mean and is there something I can do to fix it. In the meantime, I have just gone back to 3.1. (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: BrikTrak 2002 Beta 1 Now Available.
|
|
(...) Can't say that quite yet - will try when I get home. I confirmed it doesn't install on NT (maybe you should spell this out - have a "requirements" page or something). And I almost puked when that bright green install screen came up - any (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It is not my intention to control the fate of this part forever and ever. But to have some input as to how it is categorized and where it ends up in the parts list. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BrikTrak 2002 Beta 1 Now Available.
|
|
(...) <snip alot of amazing features> (...) Jake --- LEGO Enthusiast Webmaster - BI Portal (URL) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | CMDLINE Meta-statement
|
|
I understand the mechanics but could someone explain to me (or point me to a link than explains) what the CMDLINE meta-statement's purpose and use is? -Orion (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun [DAT]
|
|
I redid the part using torus primitives. I think it looks better w/ torii for the handle and cones for the large end cylinder. Also, the large end torii would look a little better if I had a t0401250 primitive but I couldn't find one. As for the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun
|
|
(...) Ha! :) That's a very good idea, IMO. Although many US'ians won't get the possible double-reference. Err, this part *has* been used as a flashlight, right? Steve (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun
|
|
(...) Sorry, I made a stupid confusion with part 4349. My proposal name for 3959 is "Minifig Torch". Damien (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun
|
|
(...) Why not "Minifig Loudhailer" ? It applies to both town and space themes and is certainly the initial intent of TLG. Damien (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I would argue that 2917 probably belongs in windscreen or window, I guess? In an ideal world there would be a way to associate a part with its "partner" as it were without using naming, there just would be a link between them somehow. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) True, but I feel this part might fall under Larry's "terribly unwieldy" escape clause. Even if he doesn't think so. (...) It's arguable at this point, but the long-term general idea is that you can do whatever you want with your original file, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: So what *IS* a Building Instruction anyway?
|
|
(...) Hmm. LDAO can do this. Or, it used to be able to. In the HTML instruction generator, it would scan for 0 SUB meta-statements in the main text. the 0 SUB line(s) would reference files that the HTML-IG would render as an inset subassembly. I (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
BTW, I found part of that discussion I mentioned in my other post. Here's the text. I don't think Terry will mind me posting it. The file I found this in is dated 7/5/2001, the discussion is possibly a year older than that. Some things are out of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Probably true. Some discussion on the train related parts to establish general standards may help though, and it may make sense to do so in the context of specific parts. With respect to this one, does it at all make sense to change the name (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part in progress - Baseplate 32 x 32 with Craters
|
|
Oh, my! Most impressive. :-D (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Hey - my first PTadmin hornet's nest !! Here's my rationalisation for changing the name, FWIW. The only comment on the part name in the review history is from Steve Bliss. No-one challenged Steve's suggestion that it should be linked by name (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
