Subject:
|
Re: LDraw-to-Raves (was: POV in Part)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:53:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1916 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Michael Horvath wrote:
> Just to drop in my 2 cents,
> I think putting them into one file would be better.
I'm torn - using a single file in POV-Ray is definitely more convenient,
and 750 definitions don't seem to be too much overhead for the parsing
engine to chew on. But for (later) updates to the wrapper library,
individual files would work better.
> Also, could you put up a quality comparison chart? Three shots of a couple of
> parts, each, so we can compare?
Maybe, but not right now. I'm somewhat tied up currently.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LDraw-to-Raves (was: POV in Part)
|
| (...) I think the 1:1 aproach would be better. Using one main include file might be convienient, but makes it difficult for many authors to contribute to. (...) Something like this? (URL) do not use the part files from there, most of them have been (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LDraw-to-Raves (was: POV in Part)
|
| Just to drop in my 2 cents, I think putting them into one file would be better. Also, could you put up a quality comparison chart? Three shots of a couple of parts, each, so we can compare? Thanks, Mike (21 years ago, 15-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
