 | | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) Fixing this one group of rarely important special cases in an efficient manner is probably not the most valuable use of your time. You could always offer 'condition point compression' as a user-selectable option. Tim (16 years ago, 16-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LETGUI new version 0.1.0.18
|
|
(...) Philo just informed me that both versions that I have packed into the setup are the old versions. So I compliled it again with the current (above mentioned) versions of that tools. I am sorry for any trouble this may have caused on your side. (...) (16 years ago, 15-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LGEO Update
|
|
Hi All, time to release an updated LGEO library. Here is a list of changes since the last update: lg_30552: added lg_30553: added lg_30554: added lg_41532: added lg_3645: added lg_49059: added lg_55013: added lg_3647: removed unreferenced (...) (16 years ago, 15-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) OK, I applied this fix (pulling the control points to be 1 LDU from the first point of the conditional line), and it seems to work. It makes the "Show control points" option under conditional lines less useful, but that's a price I'm willing (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) Well, I know where the camera is, and I can create vectors from the camera to both end-points of the conditional line, and to both control points. I'm pretty sure that the calculation could be done with just this information. However, I'm not (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) In the case that exhibits the bug, the control points are outside the frustum, but the conditional line itself isn't. So I still need to decide whether or not to draw the conditional line. In this case, it was being drawn at times that it (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) I think you're right. I'll look into that. It seems like the most straightforward, and since it's just a pre-processing step, it shouldn't affect the performance for anything other than model loading. --Travis (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) Is there some 'easy' way to determine if the control points are in or out of frustum? Is there any other way to transform points, without considering the frustum (Well, obviously there is at least one, but it's the long way of calculating the (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Running Leocad under linux (Ubuntu 8.10 32-bit)
|
|
For anyone interested, I will hereby share my experiences with Leocad under Linux (Ubuntu 8.10 32-bit) I write this because I stumbled across some issues which might be related to LeoCad itself or just my complete lack of experience. This being said (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.leocad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) OK... I think I understand what I was getting at here. When you introduce perspective then the distance of the conditional point from the line becomes important. Eg. if you have a point that is directly behind its line in a perspective free (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) Hmmm... Though I can't quite pin it down I have a suspicion that this has something to do with the spatial reduction cause by projection. What projection matrix are you using? Would a simple solution just be to move the conditional points (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) I am not the best in 3D, but if something outside the view frustum, you do not need to draw that. If you have the special case that only parts of what you should draw are outside the view frustum, I would go to calculate that values for a (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) Actually, the projected points are all that I am checking, and that's how it's supposed to work. (...) No. The way that conditional lines work is that if the two control points lie on the same side of the conditional line on the screen (in (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) If I understand correctly you shouldn't be checking on the projection, only on the full 3D transformed points. That means you should check after stage 2.5. You'll need the Z value to work out which side things lie on. Tim (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | 3D matrix math question
|
|
(...) I think I need help. I thought I was using gluProject for the conditional calculations, but discovered that I'm not. I multiple the projection matrix by the model-view matrix to get my transformation matrix, then run the points through that to (...) (16 years ago, 14-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) OK, I'll go on evaluating cedge interest when you have fixed this issue. (...) Could be workable indeed. Philo (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) Of course I start counts from zero ;o) (...) OK! My setup seems to work anyway... Philo (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) Looks like you found another LDView bug ;-). Zoom out and it works fine. It only doesn't work when the control points are clipped by the edge of the window. I'll have to figure out a way to fix that. (...) It's difficult, but by using polling (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) Hopefully you have primitive substitution set to two (second notch), since 1 provides 8-sided circular primitives. As for separating the stud logo from the primitive substitution, the logo is an implicit part of the substituted stud. It's not (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: BlueBrick
|
|
(...) Hi Michael, I've just released a new version of BlueBrick that fix the problem for the 4.5V and 12V rails. But you will need to upload some unofficial LDraw parts from the LDRAW.org part tracker, especially the new shortcuts created by Philo (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) When the curvature is the only concern, then yes, but I have to take the screwshape into consideration, the closer I am to the ideal curve, the easier it is to calculate the screwshape and avoid holes in the part. Furthermore when thinking (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive? [DAT]
|
|
I made a quick try - and it doesn't work very well, even when it should (between a cylinder and a cone). Example: (URL) (cedge primitive is here included). Cedge seems to behave correctly on the more sloped cone, but not on the other, it appears (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) I'll need to keep 3 dp in this case. But since it didn't smooth anyway I had no incentive to enlarge the file... (...) OK, we'll see if there is downsides to this. Maybe for very small details? Have a look at some fine mesh parts such as (URL) (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) Something to try. If it works it would help for several shading issues I have seen. See for example around peghole going through curved surface of (URL) Could you send me the LDraw file used to generate 61069s01a1.png? I'll see how (...) You (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) triangle has had its surface normal pulled down. So the triangle isn't co-planar with the quad as far as the lighting is concerned. With curve smoothing, all polygons who share a smoothed vertex use a common surface normal for that vertex. But (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LD4DStudio suggestions?
|
|
Hello all, I was wondering if people have some minor suggestions / bug reports for my current LD4DStudio version. Work on the 1.1 version is taking longer than expected so I was planning to release a bugfix only version this month. Any additional (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) My comment about needing twice the geometry for the edge was based on a misunderstanding of what you wrote. Based on what I now assume you meant, two wouldn't be required for each joint. However, your solution would only work if the cones on (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) It sounds like it would work, but I'm not sure if people would go for it. Of course, if the POTM competitions are anything to go by, you're making a majority of the complicated parts right now, so if you go with it, that's probably all we need (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) Mmhhh... maybe by setting 2 conditional rings on the junction. Each condring would be set between a cylinder and a cone. Scaling the ring would adapt to various cone slopes. Of course 2 rings would be needed, one for converging cones, one for (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) That's a primitive I have been longing for... but I realized it is impossible to build: where would you put the control lines? The top control points would need to be scaled differently from bottom ones to match various cylinders/cones (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) I just noticed something else while investigating a fix for the above problem. The above model could really use a circular conditional edge primitive. I would vote for x-ycedge.dat as the filename (ie 1-4cedge.dat, 4-4cedge.dat, (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) I played with the settings, and I had to set the precision all the way down to 0.133 in order to get it to fully smooth. (0.125 failed to smooth properly.) (...) .005. I think I'll set the precision to .01, to hopefully give it some leeway. I (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LETGUI new version 0.1.0.18
|
|
(...) Thanks! For the record: - Ytruder 1.2 is no longer limited to Y direction and can extrude along x, y or z directions - Intersector 1.3 has a new scaling option that improves result for small parts. Philo (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) It makes sense! (...) An example, this button: (URL) I rounded condlines to 2 decimal places since I couldn't get smoothing anyway. I did more experiments, with full precision in condline it works: (URL) but after rounding to 3 dp there is no (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LETGUI new version 0.1.0.18
|
|
A new version of LETGUI ((URL) is now available. Support for new commandline options for Ytruder1.2 and Intersector1.3 are added. Have fun! cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) Welcome back! (...) I agree with Mikeheide, since the total curvature is low I think 6 cones would be more than enough! (...) Seems a good approach. As for the edge line between screw and cones, Isecalc will provide it instantly! (It would be (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) I do not understand correctly what you are saying. If you use a cone primitive you can stretch it in all direction. There is no need to use "about 40 cones". A maximum of 10 should do the same! You should use for this the program "cones and (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) Just to refresh my memory ( I haven't done any parts since 2951) The 48 primitives divide a circle in 48 straight lines, right? That would for a 60 LDU diameter mean that each straight line is approx 4 LDU's long, so using coneshapes each 4 (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) None I know... (...) The official way is to ask a number to a LDraw admin. That said there are numerous parts on tracker named px... (would be px210c01 here) (...) Yes you should be able to use stacked cone primitives. As Travis suggested the (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) If you do find a way to use primitives, you'll probably need to use the \48 ones. I don't think 16 segments is enough for the thicker part of the drill, and switching from one resolution to another part-way along seems like it would be tricky. (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
