 | | Re: l3p as open source
|
|
(...) A nice thing about open source would be that it would be possible for other people to work on ports to different architectures other than the microsoft-based platform. While emulators may exist to allow people to get by for the time being, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone?
|
|
(...) If for nothing else, to permit them to be used as the basis for the manual creation of similar parts, and abstraction into resuable sub-components. Not a strong reason, but worth considering. (...) To use just one example - the STUD primitive (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone?
|
|
(...) Yes, since it is text based. Also, a most new authors learn by examining the code. (...) Unneccessary memory usage and file size. (...) L3P (and other converters/viewers) detect these primitives and convert them to smooth objects (e.g. L3P (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: l3p as open source (was: Re: Anatomy of a POV file (e.g. L3P suggestions))
|
|
(...) Why don't you create your main scene file that never changes and then just include the l3p output file into your scene file. I believe Lars is working on options that leave out the povray code that is required to be in the main file (like (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone?
|
|
(...) Why? Is the .DAT file supposed to be readable by humans? Why? ;) What's wrong with the larger number of polygons? What positives (from the side of the automated rendering process) does bring the existence of primitives? What's wrong with the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
