 | | 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: 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: "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: "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)
|
