 | | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) On my monitor, version 1 certainly looks cleaner and sharper. I will be interested to see how you accomplished this. It might get me back into creating instructions again, which is something I have stopped doing because I was getting so (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I've found that getting rid of the transparent colors' refraction characteristics makes for a much clearer rendering, too: (URL) no refraction>> Jim (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Unless Travis is explicitly setting it, I think POV-Ray defaults to 2.2. -Orion (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Bug when copying a group [DAT]
|
|
hi all, today I played around with the group feature and found out that MLCad "ungroups" a Group when you try to copy'n'paste a Group withing the file. furthermore the order in the .ldr looks kind of weird though it is sorted fine in the parts list (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Good point. I think the official instructions are harder to follow now with the fancy rendering. Sometimes you can't tell one color from another, especially black, white, and the various shades of gray. I can barely tell the white bricks from (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) Just for comparison, I rendered your model using the same technique as mine: (URL) m6459>> Transparent parts definitely seem to be a challenge. Jim (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) For instructions I'd definitely choose Version 1, for nice pictures Version 2 minus the hard, black edges and a little less shiny. As the other's have said: - too dark in the black. Actually, to me the whole picture is too dark - which monitor (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) - The shadows in version 2 cause color confusion. This is the most glaring example but it is repeated thoughout the rendering: the 1x2 grille piece is white in version 1 but looks grey in version 2. - No conditional lines rendered in both. - (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) I agree with Philo that the shadows are distracting. I don't think the stud logos are necessary, either. On the other hand, I think the transparent parts in the first rendering look a little too dark. There's also a grainy texture under some (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Niels Karsdorp wrote: (I've > read that there's a major update on classic windows in the pipeline.) (...) Yes, see (URL) This shows how I decided to organise these files a while back. The CA header conversion is nearing (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
(...) For me, the keypoint here is "for instructions". Anything that remove legibility to the image should be avoided. In both versions conditional lines are not rendered. Not a huge problem here, could become one on models with many rounded (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Opinions sought on rendering method
|
|
I'm working on a different rendering method (for instructions) using POV-Ray, and I wanted to get some opinions about the output. On that note, I have two sample renderings in two different sizes, and I'd like to get people's feedback. Note that I'm (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) "A part I can buy" is not how we determine where to place a file. Since x322 represents a solid piece that a modeler may need to interact with directly (that is, give it a color). Looking at the files involved, the file locations and (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) For to solve the hold vote on this part, I think, that the current x322.dat should go into the s/ folder because this is not a PART that I can buy. So the file with the metal portion should be instead x322.dat and with the light (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Why LDraw.org doesn't use ldconfig.ldr ???
|
|
(...) To me also. I meant to respond, but my verification email address was down temporarily when the original message was posted, and I forgot to respond later. --Travis (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Reminder: 2007/2008 LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) closing in a week
|
|
(...) There is no seconding for LSC nominations. --Travis (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why LDraw.org doesn't use ldconfig.ldr ???
|
|
(...) Yes, at least to me :-) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | PreL3P 1.0
|
|
PreL3P is a console tool that converts LDraw color codes unrecognized by L3P to hexadecimal "extended color" specifications. It reads "!COLOUR" meta commands from ldconfig.ldr to determine the color of any given code. For more details, an example, (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad) !
|
| |
| | Re: LDMerge 1.0
|
|
(...) LDMerge 1.1 is now available. It fixes a bug with "unmerge -source all" and tries to do a better job reporting paths in native format. Bug reports welcome. Jim (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Call for Nominations: 2007/2008 LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC)
|
|
(...) Thanks, I accept. Philo (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
