 | | Re: 4150p?? ver 2.0 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) A key part of what I wrote is "more likely". So it's a good thing to put "important" elements, like the pattern, earlier in the file, but it's no guarantee they won't be overdrawn by coincident features. So it's not sufficient[1] to move the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | 4150p?? 3rd permutation —Patrick Sayre-Little
|
| | | | (...) Point taken. I'll try to remember that in the future. (...) Duh! I knew I was missing something. Do you think this is ready for submission? 0 Tile 2 x 2 Round with Submarine Radar Pattern 0 Name: 4150p??.dat 0 Author: Patrick Sayre-Little 0 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 4150p?? 3rd permutation —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Hmm. Try viewing just the pattern (copy it to a temp file, or use LDAO's "Stop-At-Cursor" option), from Above at zoom>=16. You'll see some gaps around the bubbles. Also, if you move the bubble-background up to Y=-1, you'll see it overwrites (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 4150p?? 4th try —Patrick Sayre-Little
|
| | | | (...) Small, but significant enough for me to do something about. I don't have LDAO (or any other front-end, for that matter), but I did see and fix the gaps by zooming to 16 in LDraw. Here's the result: 0 Tile 2 x 2 Round with Submarine Radar (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 4150p?? 4th try —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | It looks good. I would recommend two things. This is general advice, not something that must be changed on this part (although it would improve the pattern further): 1. When connecting quads/triangles/lines to primitives, use the same number of (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 4150p?? 4th try —Patrick Sayre-Little
|
| | | | (...) I appreciate that, thanks. (...) _I_ do that diligently. It's LDraw that changes it. Unless you mean 0.5 should be written as 0.50 to conform more with 0.25. Either that or I completly missed your point. :) (...) I try to do that whenever I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
