 | | Re: FAQ update (Was: Problem with 1-4con1.dat)
|
|
(...) Well, I don't know about the 'very respected' part, but other than that, it's fine. :) (...) A very wise decision. Unfortunately. :( I'm hoping to improve speed after this first go-round. Steve (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | BFC Test Files (was: ===== MLCad V1.8 IS AVAILABLE =====)
|
|
[X-FUT lugnet.cad.dev] (...) [snip rest of announcement] (...) everyone saw it: I've uploaded a set of files which have been cleaned and marked up, according to the existing BFC proposal. The file only includes some basic 1x and 2x bricks, a couple (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | FAQ update (Was: Problem with 1-4con1.dat)
|
|
Steve: (...) Is the new text sufficient? I decided to remove the promise that you will have a new update ready every month. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL: (URL) > -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
(...) Oh, good! Fresh blood. :) I've uploaded a BFC-test file with the part files for a few bricks, and the primitives needed to support them. Anyone who wants to play with these files can get them from (URL). My suggestion: make a second (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Problem with 1-4con1.dat
|
|
(...) That's a good test. How soon can a new L3P be distributed? (...) Questionable, but it works. For now, at least. (...) Yes. Steve (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Problem with 1-4con1.dat
|
|
(...) The procedure is this: the parts authors (that's a bunch of people) create and maintain parts files. They send their files to the parts administrator (that's me). The parts administrator puts together a proposed list of files to go in the next (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
(...) I think this is a little too much for the task, you don't need to try to remove the interior too, it won't make a big difference. Think of a 2x2 plate, if you can remove the stud4, you're saving 48 quads, 64 lines and 32 optional lines while (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Checking for bowtie quads?
|
|
(...) Wow, I'm glad I revisited this since I think I can save some rendering time by saving the vertex normals from the bowtie checks for the OpenGl lighting phase in LdGLite. Here is the algorithm I came up with before I decided to use the L3 code (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
(...) In this case you could leave out the interior of the 2x2, but you must use the entire top of the 4x4. In the case of solid wall like structures, however, it could reduce 90% of the blocks to no interiour, and no studs. -Chuck (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
Tore Eriksson wrote... (...) Uh, maybe. However, if you have a 2x2 brick on top of the 2x4, how do you leave out only half the TOP section? Or you wouldn't? Maybe parts should be broken into subparts for analysis? I think the main problem is, that (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
