 | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source? —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | (...) Well, I actually want to take this kind of thing to the LSC for review. (...) I had not made it this far. I had just made it to the concept phase. There are a few things that control hose synthesis; hose type, hose segment part type, segment (...) (21 years ago, 16-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I'd very much like to figure what definition information can be put in part files, and how model files could then specify the specific way the part is deformed. Steve (21 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source? —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | (...) OK Steve, I'll work up a proposal. Kevin (21 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source? —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) Hi Steve, I'm still trying to understand this terse response. Right now, LSynth uses meta commands and part usages to define constraints for the synthesis process. LSynth performs in-line synthesis. That is to say, it does not spit out the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Yes. What I'm envisioning is two meta-commands (or sets of meta-commands) that would be used to model flexible parts. One meta-command would go in part files, and would define how a specific flexible part behaves -- is it fixed length/variable (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
