 | | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Considering the general pace we've alway had with LDraw.org, "sooner than expected" would be impressive. ;) (...) Actually, I'm not sure I've ever seen example source LDR/image files, or even a definition of the syntax. (...) True. But now (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) I've been thinking about that as well. But I'm for now a bit of against such due to the amount of work it'd take and the smallness of the pros in compared to such. But I may be convinced otherwise fairly easily. -Santeri (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Me neither. Nothing on Facebook is "out in the open", since it is a (URL) walled garden>. Jim (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Considering the conservative spirit that rules this community, where it is preferred to have no-progress over breaking backwards compatibility an where standards set in LDraw 0.27 should be possibly kept for eternity, such ideas have to be (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) I know. It's heresy! But if there are enough good reasons to make that leap, it might be worth it. Steve (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) I don't know why you need this, but I just did a test with LDView and it works. You can call an mpd file from within a part and the first model in the mpd file is shown together with the other content of the part file. cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) This is the first time I've heard this mentioned. Can someone tell me why this would be useful? I'm certainly open to the possibility, but only if it provides a concrete benefit, and I'm not having any luck coming up with what that benefit (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) By the definitions of that article, *LUGNET* is a walled garden. <blank stare> I have put up a step-by-step showing example source LDR/image files. I did it on Facebook, because it took me almost no time to do. I'd either have had to set up my (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) HURRAY! And in one go we are also gonna drop dithered colors in favour of RGBs. We'll have textures, the LSC is finally shaping the LCD - LDraw Connection Database (URL) and yourself are going to help getting LDView working as PT rendering (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Err, what? No, don't mix color codes and RGBs in official parts! This isn't an issue of backwards compatibility. It's an issue of adding complexity where it isn't needed (IMO, of course). (...) Ha! I'd have to get it back from Chris... Steve (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I think eliminating part-specific subfiles would be a nice file-management benefit, if nothing else. I expect that reducing the number of part-specific subfiles would speed up the part-approval process, always a good thing. The most important (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I can see that, although a great deal of care would need to be taken to make sure that the MPD sub-files had no chance of being useful in another part. (...) I can definitely see that. (...) I totally disagree with this as an argument for (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I was about to write the same thing, but you beat me. I think it's a great idea! I can think of two potential problems: 1. Programs that create seams between parts but not models. (Are there any more than L3P?) Depending on how they are (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a conservative community - at least some of us. (...) No password, not a single CA-header edit on your agenda nor a library update since ... was it 2004 or 2005? Steve, (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Your passive-aggressive whining wears thin, Willy. Your chief target laughs it off, but you keep at it. What little sense of community there might be is not helped by this behavior or attitude. This approach says a lot more about you (and (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Joshua, got a link for you: (URL) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Not sure where you're going with that. I think adding RGB colors to official parts would not be a net improvement to the parts library system. It has nothing to do with backwards compatibility or conservatism. Steve (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Steve, our opposing positions on RGBs are known. What I seek in this very moment is your position on the second question in this post: (URL) "No password, not a single CA-header edit on your agenda nor a library update since ... was it 2004 or (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) DOH! I forgot to include -- Part of the reason I think RGB colors are not the way to go is because they don't solve the real problem -- there are a good number of patterns that can't realistically be modeled in LDraw. Anything with gradients, (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Time for a cadfight! :) /Tore (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Sure, doing the right thing in terms of putting the code in the most advantageous location is always worth the effort. (...) Hey, it's all about namespace management, right? As a parts author, I avoid using subfiles unless there is a fairly (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Hey, good point. Since we're on the topic of crater plates, I'd like to use this part (URL) to hijack this thread and make an observation about part colors. As you can probably see from the picture, the shark crater plate uses a printed (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) ... is it hijacking to put a thread back on topic? (even if the title is changed, it's still the same thread, right?) ... (...) Which is exactly why I brought up texture mapping. Solving gradients with texture mapping makes a lot of sense, for (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
And again, I forgot to include a bit. And second-posting about something very cool! Don, Be sure to take a look at Joshua's texture mapping primer/exposition on Facebook: (URL) good stuff, and could have very good benefits to LDraw. Steve (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) No one in his right mind would do this baseplate without using texture mapping. OK, Philo would, but I question that he's right in the head on a regular basis. :) Even so, the question would be, should one duplicate the nature of the stippling (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
First of all, let me say that while my previous post probably implied that I'm against allowing MPDs as parts, I am in fact still open to the possibility. I'm just not sure I'm completely convinced by the arguments given so far. (...) The only place (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Well, since the stippling pattern is just an artifact of the printing process, I'd say it's foolish to reproduce it. Some of the dots on the newer stippled gradients are so tiny I can't even see them without a huge magnifier (or maybe I just (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Yeah, I checked it out the first time it was mentioned. I even poked around in the LDView CVS archives for a few minutes looking for hints of the magic syntax before the Walled Garden stuff got posted. Looks very promising! I guess I'm finally (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote:> Well, since the stippling pattern is just an artifact of the printing (...) Interesting. Not the response I was expecting. :) Back when I was building the first gradient example for the texture (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I like your thinking! :) But Shader Language programming is really more along the lines of what we'll need for the next step I'd like to see: gloss maps. Those will allow shiny paint on torsos (for instance) to shine in the light, making gold, (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Absolutely. I wasn't advocating sticking 'public' subparts into the part's MPD. Just to be clear. Steve (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Yeah, I know what's available at the low end of OpenGl. That's where I live. I was just trying to keep up the curmudgeonly atmosphere of this place with the whipper-snapper comment. Did I do it wrong? Oh well, at least there's still that gloss (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) You know, it occurs to me that if MPD's were allowed as parts, it would be a GREAT place to put a texture file (properly hex encoded, no doubt). They're almost always single-part-only. And if one wanted better textures than "come standard?" (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I think this is a good one: MPD parts would be a great way to store "default" textures for texture mapping (hex encode them). That would encapsulate the design with the part, overcoming one of the big "pain points" of adopting textures. (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) I really don't like this idea. I agree that it has the cool property of encapsulating everything in one file, but it has three big problems that I can think of off the top of my head: "Hex" encoding of the texture file increases its size by a (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) Yeah, what he said. (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
|
(...) In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty wrote: (...) In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote: (...) I was actually thinking "uuencode" when I wrote this, and used hex for shorthand and because I figured it was more universally (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) This is really interesting work. Just curious, but have you considered how you'd implement bump mapping as well? (Bump mapping would allow the "rough" texture on slopes, for instance. I think that would be the only application for it, but (...) (15 years ago, 15-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) If I'm not mistaken, two big pushes were made for texture mapping, in 2004 and 2007. Both failed because of too much committee, too little action. This after previous attempts were made, of course, but looking at LUGNET, that's when the big (...) (15 years ago, 16-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) I was under the impression that LDView already uses bump mapping for the stud logos. Is that wrong? (15 years ago, 16-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) But that's different from parts authors being able to use bump mapping in a part file. Or specific colors actually being implemented as bumps/textures -- so 'rubber black' actually looks distinct from 'black'. (15 years ago, 16-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Texture maps let us wrap images to polygons. This is great for painted images on surfaces, such as mini-figure torsos or the sides of walls. Bump maps describe how each point (texel) in the texture reacts to light, by describing a virtual (...) (15 years ago, 16-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) As it happens, the stud logos in LDView are just regular textures. --Travis (15 years ago, 16-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
|
|
(...) Wow, what a let down! I'm totally disappointed (with my apparently failing memory, not with you or LDView. Well, ok, maybe I'm just a teeny bit less impressed with LDView right now, but I'll get over it. :) Have fun, Don (15 years ago, 17-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | example texture files
|
|
(...) I've been tossing this around for a while, and while I'm not sure who'd really use it in ldglite considering LDView is so much better suited for modern OpenGL use, it still seems like it'd be fun to experiment with. So, are there any example (...) (15 years ago, 1-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: example texture files
|
|
(...) (URL) that some of the files may have BFC issues. Look at 973pa9.dat for a file that has fallback geometry. As a side note, rebel_tile.dat (and the part it points to) have bad texture coordinates, so the texture is mirrored. --Travis (15 years ago, 1-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: example texture files
|
|
(...) By the way, I'm still not sure whether it's really worth it to attempt this in ldglite, or if it'd be more worthwhile to try something that might actually end up being useful, like say a minifig modeler (or maybe an lsynth GUI) built around (...) (15 years ago, 2-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: example texture files
|
|
(...) LDVLib doesn't allow you to edit models at all. You point it at an existing file and tell it to load. Having said that, if you wanted to do some (most?) of the work, it could probably be made to be usable for a minifig modeler, since (...) (15 years ago, 2-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
