 | | 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)
|
