 | | Re: User POV substitutions in L3P —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) Yes, definitely. What kind of commands do you add to the LDraw files? My concern would be how to hook up your stuff with the standard LDraw parts library, so we wouldn't have to maintain two separate sets of code. Steve (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: User POV substitutions in L3P —Chuck Sommerville
|
| | | | (...) I don't believe there are any conflicts. All the commands are imbedded in comment fields. You can have a closer look. Check out this thread where I post a URL to a sample kit. (URL) (25 years ago, 11-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: User POV substitutions in L3P —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) to the 1x1 cone - the interior is seriously messed up). So it would be an easy thing to maintain one common code-library, but generate a 'pure LDraw' version for distribution. Assuming that the amount of POV code added significant overhead to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: User POV substitutions in L3P —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | Steve Bliss wrote... (...) Yes, as I wrote in cad.ray ((URL) However, I see your suggestion as a smart golden mean (...) I.e. the common code can have special mock-up section, or you can simply "uncomment" details or interior of a part. /Lars (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: User POV substitutions in L3P —Chuck Sommerville
|
| | | | (...) My original purpose was to clean up the outside of the parts, but I really like the Idea of eliminating the insides when they aren't needed. -Chuck (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
