 | | Re: Thanks to all the parts developers
|
|
(...) I would like to do so as well. It sounds like a lot of work. -Mike (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify --Orion (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I second and would like to add -- Travis Cobbs -- Tore Eriksson w. (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing with the dats easier. $0.02 Dan (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I agree - Current rules say I qualifiy, and Steve will tell you, getting me to review is like pulling teeth! :) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) Yes, it makes sense. I think given this point it's best to keep it to people who have reviewed in the last two updates - what does everyone else think? (...) I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or 'dumber') (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) ... (...) Since the requirement says we want "active contributors", should this be clarified to say "5 reviews in each of the last two updates"? I don't think that I qualify to be on the LSC, just because I reviewed 20 files back in early (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I accept. (...) I'll second these two, and everyone else who's been nominated so far. :) Steve (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Yeah, the compartmentalized among us were asking I post LSC stuff in cad.dev.org.ldraw :-) (...) Consider it withdrawn. My mistake for not thinking ahead :-) I'd like to add a nomination for Larry Pieniazek - he was also involved in sorta the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
I would like to nominate: Michael Lachmann and Bernd Broich Paul (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Thanks, I will accept. Paul (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Tim: I was wondering what was happening to LSC effort, and here I discover there was yet another newsgroup that I should have been subscribed to. I'll spend later tonight catching up on what I've missed. With regards to the LSC nomination, as (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Thanks to all the parts developers
|
|
(...) Of course I join to part authors praising. Part authors can't be praised enough, especially as new parts quality is so much high. And of course we want Willy Tschager's space parts to be certified and released as soon as possible. Damien (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) After thinking about it for a while, I totally agree. If anyone wants to make perfect rendering with stud logos lined up correctly (how often does this occur?), I assume this person must have the knowledge to inline that part locally at (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) Correct. There's no way to know if they actually face the right direction, so I just figured that horizontal mirroring was more likely to be correct than vertical (although I could be wrong). (...) You can, but my code that decides which (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) Actually that does help a bit. It looks like you aren't concerned with whether the logo faces the same direction as on the actual part, you're just ensuring that it's readable. That makes me feel better about my solution. By the way, why do (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Thanks to all the parts developers
|
|
(...) thx to you kevin for makin' pov-rendering a piece of cake. toying around with all this cryptic pov-code was never easier. w. (waiting to see his space parts certified, especially the crater plate - reviewers please!) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) I don't actually do any transformations in LDView to get the logos right. I just detect the mirroring (by tracking negative determinants and flipping the mirrored bit every time I see one) and modify my texture coordinates to un-mirror (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I also nominate: Paul Easter -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) Yeah, I did a search for determinant and found your note. I tried the on-the-fly fix in ldglite with the L3 structs and it seems to work, although I'm not sure I'm applying the fix correctly. Is it really as simple as multiplying some matrix (...) (21 years ago, 2-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
