Subject:
|
Re: Lego XML?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:56:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
915 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Cary Clark writes:
>
> Let me expand on that. An XML color can be an abstraction that is defined
> somewhere else. So the attribute color="red" can mean LEGO red in the LEGO
> namespace, but some other red (like 0xFF0000) in the XHTML namespace, for
> instance. Further, the color could carry more information, like
> transparency, luminocity, reflectance, and so on that may be implied but
> isn't explicitly described by the current LDraw format.
Color is a bad concept when you're making parts, it would be much better
to have a material library instead. For example, currently we use the same
black color to describe tires, the reflective sides of bricks and the
non-smooth sides of bricks (some faces of slopes).
It would cool to be able to keep the rubber parts as they are now, add a
specular or environment map to the bricks and bump maps to the slopes. 3D
cards are so cheap these days that it wouldn't make any difference in
performance.
But if you're talking about describing models only then it's ok to be
limited to colors, or maybe people don't want to see all of that when they
are making instructions but we could make our CAD programs look more like a
'preview' of a POV rendering.
Leonardo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego XML?
|
| (...) ... (...) Let me expand on that. An XML color can be an abstraction that is defined somewhere else. So the attribute color="red" can mean LEGO red in the LEGO namespace, but some other red (like 0xFF0000) in the XHTML namespace, for instance. (...) (21 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
