 | | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) I like the idea of CSG. Unfortunately I can not invest time in Rayshade and alternate ray-tracers. I know they can have attractive features but I am more a POV user. I must impose some limit to my (already too high) diversification. Of course, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
(...) Stud4 primitive could be convex-decomposed just as Ring4 primitive is today. More generally, just as any LDraw surface is convex-decomposed with just triangles and quads (3,4 points respectively), I guess any LDraw volume can be (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) Sorry, I must have been reading more into your example than you intended. (...) It's the former: the author intends to make a reflected object, but not an inverted object. (...) It depends on who (or what) you want to keep things simple *for*. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
If you're interested, take a look at my old Rayshade libraries that made the bricks from scratch using CSG. I'm especially fond of the L3G0 40-tooth technic gear. I've thought it would be nice to have "bounding boxes" for the bricks, for collision (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
Maybe I'm more confused now, or less who knows. But I don't think I made what I was trying to say clear in that last post. So here I am replying to myself... :) (...) That last sentance doesn't really get across what I was trying to say I think. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
