 | | License questions
|
|
Hello All, I'm starting work on POV-Ray export for my LD4DStudio project and was wondering about the LDraw license. I'm planning to generate POV-Ray files/objects per highlevel LDraw part. In the resulting source I will include all '0' lines from (...) (16 years ago, 18-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: dll file for use with Visual Basic Express
|
|
(...) I like the idea. Naturally, I would like a portable LDraw library even better. How useful would a VB library be to Linux or Mac LDraw users? (There are at least a few!) In any case, a generic API could certainly make it easier to create new (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | dll file for use with Visual Basic Express
|
|
Is there anybody that it interested in an dll that comes with objects and methods to handle ldraw related files? It would not be for showing the parts but could be base to develop that. Any comments are welcome. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Edge lines in patterns
|
|
(...) I think we do not need to specify the use of edgelines more than we have done, if everybody knows what edgelines are and that in some cases they are not shown in pictures/renderings. So they should be as nature only on edges. If there are (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Edge lines in patterns
|
|
(...) The spec intentionally didn't put absolute limits on what color 24 could be used for, so I think it's up to the reviewers. My tendency would be to hold the part, but not because it does something that goes against the spec, but instead because (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Edge lines in patterns
|
|
Hi guys, I thought we had specs for almost everything, but I was proven wrong. Looking at this pattern (URL) see 24colored edges around the pattern. I was going to hold vote it, since I never "edged" a pattern - and I made a lot of them in my career (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
|
(...) Hi Jim, since the admins check the header and also modify them before shipping (Unofficial to Official for example) I would just "novote with comments" for NEWLY submitted parts to make the author aware of the new specs and the tools (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
|
(...) Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure there even were issues with the header - I was just looking for example reviews, and trying to figure out what purpose, if any, the specifications play. Jim (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
|
(...) If the header is the only problem, certifying is fine -- just note the issue, so the admins can clean up the header later. If it's a question of the header's content (ie, "is that the right title?", etc), then you might go for novote. (...) (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Another part review question - about headers
|
|
(...) Hi Willy, Thanks for the background. So, if the header just needs to be cleaned up, you recommend novote with a note about the header format? If I can ask for one more example, how would you respond to a header like this? 0 Car Mudguard 4 1/2 (...) (16 years ago, 17-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
