 | | Re: LDraw-to-Raves (was: POV in Part)
|
|
(...) That's it. Do you think you could add to that? I guess a POV file could be made that would automatically generate a gallery. I'll have to look into that. -Mike (23 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw-to-Raves (was: POV in Part)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Can somebody send me a picture of ...
|
|
Hi all, I'm currently working on (URL) 30639 Container 4x4x4>. I'm nearly done with it, just have to add the hinges. I have 30639, but there is a similar piece (URL) 30637 Container 4x2x4> which I don't have. If somebody could send me a few pictures (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (23 years ago, 15-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
