 | | A different simple question
|
|
Hello all you super-smart PoV-Rayers out there, I've been fooling around with some simple animation the past few days and for some reason I can't seemt o be able to do what I want. I have a bowl-ish shape (thanks Michael L. for the generator in (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Thanks. I implemented it that way, and it seems to be working so far, so I believe that everything is fine. (...) You're too right. Unfortunately, I can go for a while and do a really good job of commenting, and then I'll slack off for one (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
I have these comments: 1) Why not use COLOURDEF in stead of introducing the'!' ? 2) CHROME | METALLIC | RUBBER seem to me like materials. Are they just shortcuts for convenience? 3) It should be possible to specify RGB color in decimal. Either r,g,b (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) Yeah, well, it's been three years since the last L3P release, so I guess it's about time for another :-) The current v1.3 release has proven to be quite stable, so I have just collected and implemented a list of wishes from various users. (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Since det(AB)=det(A)det(B) I don't think it matters whether you check the determinant (mirroring) at each level or the final level. Too bad you didn't add a comment in your old code :-) I often beat myself for not adding more elaborate (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Simple POV-Ray Question - Perspective
|
|
(...) L3P automatically moves the camera further away, please see (URL) is currently the way to go. I placed the "//orthographic" line in the camera setting only as a convenience if you want to experiment with that camera - you will have to adjust (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Tim here. I think there is ambiguity and I would like it removed but I do not want Tim to be barred from standing for election as a result of removing it. The issue here is that of conflict of interest. While I think Jake McKee is (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, the point is to make a distinction between employees who have influence on strategy decisions within the company, and low-level employees who do not. Example, I currently work part time at a LEGO store, while attending school. I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Jacob said: "No professional employee of The LEGO? Company or any affiliated or subsidiary company shall be eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer." Is the ambiguity in the word "professional"? Ok, so if we say "No employee of TLC..." (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) The only change made between the last posting of the document to the mail list and the posting here was in the clause Jacob addressed. Jacob's edits still leave some ambiguity - is that what we want? If in the future there is a candidate who's (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
