 | | Re: New parts and question about metal parts
|
|
(...) You cannot stick parts with studs in the bottom tubes, 'cause these plates (2x8, 4x8 and 6x8) don't have bottom tubes. Their functionality is less then the later created plates. The difference in functionality between these plates is bigger (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Parts Library (was Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0)
|
|
How complete will the parts library for this program be? Will it include all the parts TLC has 3d computer models of or will it be limited somehow? What about decorated/printed parts? Minifig parts & accessories? Stickers? Sails and capes and such (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
I can see this being a great thing as long as: 1.it doesnt have any artificial limits on it 2.the LXF file format is documented and there are no restrictions on using it (ref the TLC patents mentioned earlier in the thread) 3.it has support for all (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) Isn't that redundant? [ -> .off-topic.geek ] (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego XML?
|
|
(...) I've thought about this, because most LDraw-programs (ie, LDLite, L3Lab, MLCAD, L3P, ldglite, LDView?) provide a way to code color-values directly in some RGB method. My issue is that different systems (computer systems, graphics systems) (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Crazy, OK Heretical Idea ...
|
|
(...) Uh, you might want to recheck that enthusiasm. Right now, AFAIK (and I haven't double-checked, so you might want to try it), *only* LDLite will render all of the LDLite meta-statements. They definitely are not allowable in parts submitted for (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Crazy, OK Heretical Idea ...
|
|
I just did a double take : ) YEA, vertex lists ! I was working up to proposing just this sort of addition to the standard. Since these already exist can they be grandfathered into the 1.0 document that Orion has prepared ? -JSM PS. I was so annoyed (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Crazy, OK Heretical Idea ...
|
|
(...) Yes! LOD would be very useful. There are several general purpose LOD methods out there, but again we may be able to improve performance or ease a renderer's job, by supplying even more information in a part file. Polygons, could be flagged as (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Crazy, OK Heretical Idea ...
|
|
(...) I would think that some sort of 'material' definition would definitely be useful, to give these (reflection etc.) types of hints to a renderer. I'm not sure that 'textures' themselves are required, but then again, Textures may be a better way (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Crazy, OK Heretical Idea ...
|
|
(...) Since Jason brought this up -- *is* there a method for material/texture mapping in z-buffer renderers like LDraw? TLG is using more 'special treatment' materials in their parts, and it would be very nice if LDraw could keep up. I'd be a very (...) (21 years ago, 1-May-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
