 | | Re: BTW, Dither What Colors...?
|
|
(...) Of course, I mean the blending, not the dithering... (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | BTW, Dither What Colors...?
|
|
(...) Hmm. "You may think this is easy, but wait 'til I've explained it to you!" (One of my father's favourite standard joke.) I don't know how much difference it will make, but current standard colors are much better than the 16 original LDraw (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Your passive-aggressive whining wears thin, Willy. Your chief target laughs it off, but you keep at it. What little sense of community there might be is not helped by this behavior or attitude. This approach says a lot more about you (and (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Warning: Printing Bug in MLCad!
|
|
Hi, sorry to say, but I just found a bug in MLCad which is caused by the actual compiler I'm using. When you start printing preview in MLCad it is crashing when part lists are printed. I'm working on that .... Michael (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: *** MLCad V3.30 ***
|
|
"Travis Cobbs" <tcobbs@REMOVEgmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Kxn3yE.p2D@lugnet.com... (...) So I will take over parts of the build in color table in the range of 256 to 511. During this step the programm will convert these dittered colors (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a conservative community - at least some of us. (...) No password, not a single CA-header edit on your agenda nor a library update since ... was it 2004 or 2005? Steve, (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: *** MLCad V3.30 ***
|
|
(...) As it happens, the LSC has been dealing with this very issue for the past few months. There is no mention made of dither colors in any of the current LDraw specs (including the official parts restrictions). They somehow got dropped (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I can see that, although a great deal of care would need to be taken to make sure that the MPD sub-files had no chance of being useful in another part. (...) I can definitely see that. (...) I totally disagree with this as an argument for (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I was about to write the same thing, but you beat me. I think it's a great idea! I can think of two potential problems: 1. Programs that create seams between parts but not models. (Are there any more than L3P?) Depending on how they are (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I think eliminating part-specific subfiles would be a nice file-management benefit, if nothing else. I expect that reducing the number of part-specific subfiles would speed up the part-approval process, always a good thing. The most important (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
