 | | Re: Help needed connecting tracks
|
|
(...) Thanks Jan, that's brilliant finished article: (URL) (19 years ago, 8-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed connecting tracks
|
|
Hej Steve, here you go: (URL) Jan. (19 years ago, 8-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Help needed connecting tracks
|
|
I've created an .ldr file and it's complete except I can't get the rubber tracks to both meet and retain their characteristic tightness. (URL) MLCad skills only go so far and I can't get the right angle of rotation, I would be much obliged if some (...) (19 years ago, 8-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM / SOTM Voting For December Is Now Open
|
|
(...) Here's the reply I got on the pnForums regarding the use of the authid: The main reasons are all security related. When a form is secured using authid: 1) The form can't be faked by inserting things into the get/post array. 2) The form is (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: "Left" view
|
|
(...) Actually, front and back are the same in both projections. One might argue that since MLCad does the top and bottom views that we're expecting, that this invalidates the argument. However, remember that the LDraw coordinate system is flipped, (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Left" view
|
|
(...) Hmm, maybe. But in both first- and third-angle projections, the central view/projection shows the same side of the object. In the case of MLCAD, when you choose 'front view', you are shown the front of the model. Same for top, bottom, and back (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Left" view
|
|
(...) Hello, all. I'm a new poster to this newsgroup, usually just a lurker. This discussion caught my eye and I wanted chime in. Perhaps the reason the LEFT view appears wrong is due to the orthographic projection scheme used by MLCad--First-Angle (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gold Chrome via L3P
|
|
(...) That's great news, Lars! Thanks for the suggestion, and as always thanks for the great work. Dave! (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM / SOTM Voting For December Is Now Open
|
|
(...) I'm hesitant to use a captcha since it's just one more step in a process that's supposed to be quick and easy (i.e. it makes since to us webheads but the general user will see it as a pain-in-the-rear). I do however agree that a permissions (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it possible to use LDView as POV-Ray previewer?
|
|
(...) By sort first I mean I would find which vector is most-orthogonal (ie. the one whose dot protucts were smallest compared to the other two) and leave it be, then I'd perpendicularise the one whose dot-product was smallest with the first one and (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it possible to use LDView as POV-Ray previewer?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what you mean by "sort first". However, I do what you say, and make the right and up perpendicular, then use the cross product to determine the direction. POV-Ray is only pedantic when the "vista buffer" is enabled (which is true (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM / SOTM Voting For December Is Now Open
|
|
(...) POVray worked hard for those images. Shrinking them is telling it that you have no respect for its work. You never know, all future renders might turn out wrong because it is mad. ;) Tim (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM / SOTM Voting For December Is Now Open
|
|
(...) I could also email Orion a 800 x 600 version of mine.... (URL) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: OK here's the real problem! (Was: Re: Finding a rotation matrix for a triangle)
|
|
(...) Actually, what you need to do is *skew* the 1-4edge. Literally deform it, so it stretches along the edge of the stud3 cylinder. If you turn it, it will no longer intersect the surface of the cylinder -- the edge will disappear inside the (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it possible to use LDView as POV-Ray previewer?
|
|
(...) None handy but all I'd do is sort first and then perpendicularise one and use the cross-product for the third. Probably what you do anyway. To be honest I don't see why POVray is being so pedantic about it. It's only going to be accurate (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM / SOTM Voting For December Is Now Open
|
|
(...) While I agree with both of you, we should keep in mind that Orion said that this is a postnuke problem. Since the whole site is done with postnuke, I don't think there's much he can do about it, unless there's some postnuke option to work (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it possible to use LDView as POV-Ray previewer?
|
|
(...) Thanks for the offer. It sounds like I can make use of parameters that Lars has already implemented if I just change my outputs slightly, so I think I'll go that route. If you've already got the code or pseudo-code lying around, I'd like to (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it possible to use LDView as POV-Ray previewer?
|
|
(...) I can do that. Unless I'm badly mistaken, my existing up will work fine as a sky vector. (...) Reading between the lines of the descriptions of the various camera settings, it really looks like POV-Ray automatically generates direction, up, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: OK here's the real problem! (Was: Re: Finding a rotation matrix for a triangle) [DAT]
|
|
(...) Take the edge line: 1 2 -30 4 10 -3.69552 0 -1.53073 0 1 0 1.53073 0 -3.69552 1-4edge.dat Put it in a separate subfile. Include that subfile with no rotation matrix. Now apply a new MLCad rotation to the subfile. Finally inline the subfile to (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: OK here's the real problem! (Was: Re: Finding a rotation matrix for a triangle)
|
|
(...) I think my interpratation from the last time was halfway there and this explains it much better so we're definitely getting somewhere faster now :). You should be able to use the formula I gave in the last reply instead of an XYZ+angle in (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
