 | | Re: question/problem with some flag parts
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure there is not a 6 x 3 1/3 flag, and seeing as the original author titled it "6 x 4" I suspect this was just an error in authoring (and review !). I'll liaise with the author to arrange a fix. Chris (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: How do I write a header file for an updated part...
|
|
(...) I've not discussed with Steve, but I'd go for option 2 - write a new header but credit the previous author in a subsidiary comment. If the existing author is still active, it would be polite to let them know what you're doing. Please re-use (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | How do I write a header file for an updated part...
|
|
...when the new version is redone from scratch? In the past, I've done some minor reworking of files. In these cases, I simply added the date, my name, and a description of what I'd done to the file. But what about when I fire up Notepad and start (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: question/problem with some flag parts
|
|
You're right. The 43.dat isn't a 6 x 4 flag. But I can't tell you if there exists a real 6 x 3 1/3 one. The "Jolly Roger" one is named correct. Does anybody want to fix this? CU Bernd Jaco van der Molen <jmolen@globalxs.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: question/problem with some flag parts
|
|
Hmm... The flag 6 x 4 (#43) is actually 6 x 3 1/3. Flag 6 x 4 (#43P01) is 6 x 4. Strange. I do not own any of these two parts, but I think part 43 is either mesured wrong or the description is wrong. Or part 43P01 is wrong... Jaco "Jonathan Wilson" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | question/problem with some flag parts
|
|
Can someone explain why the "flag 6 x 4" and the "flat 6 x 4 with jolly roger pattern" are different sizes? Is this an error? (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P v1.3 for Mac OSX
|
|
(...) Right! I must have been sleeping or thinking of strncpy...? Please delete 2) from the comment. (...) According to the CRT source ungetc doesn't use fseek, but with L3fgets the need to open in text mode has gone, so I might as well open in (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Why should parts not have vertices lying along edges?
|
|
(...) I wouldn't ignore it lightly as it can have many adverse effects. You get little holes from from the roundoff errors. You can also see it in lighting problems with more advanced renderers such as ldview and POV. Here's an old example of the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why should parts not have vertices lying along edges?
|
|
(...) My opinion is that this isn't a significant enough problem to worry about. Further more, I consider this is a renderer limitation and not a problem with the part itself. Therefore, feel free to ignore this if it suits your purposes. -Orion (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Why should parts not have vertices lying along edges?
|
|
For this discussion, I'm using the term "polygon" to refer to quads or triangles. When I say "primitive", I'm talking about more complex primitives such as discs and non-discs. And when I refer to "edges", I'm talking about line segments between a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
