 | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Jindrich Kubec
|
| | | (...) 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | (...) 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: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, rendering time gets affected too, right? It's harder to build a model if it takes MLCad 20 seconds to redraw once... Oh, you mean for the rendering in POV when doing the animation? Well, file loading time, memory consumption, etc. etc. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Jindrich Kubec
|
| | | | | | (...) I should probably find then for what is LDraw library aimed at. If it's something like as perfect as possible renders or some quick mockup prototyping. (...) Wouldn't it be possible to be the parts as accurate as possible and then (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) No DAT part can provide a perfect render without using some substitutions - flat polygons just can't do perfect curved surfaces. But that's another issue. I have recently finished re-authoring Ben's wheels (URL) (waiting for his OK before I (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Maybe I'm missing the point here, but if this whole discussion is about Ben's excellent independently produced wheels, then whether or not they are modelled appropriately for inclusion in the official LDraw library is academic. The official (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm sorry if I was unclear. Earlier in the thread I put forward Bens wheels as an example and continued that example here. I realise they would not be eligible for inclusion in the official Ldraw library, and would not submit them. This thread (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Darrell Urbien
|
| | | | | | (...) (I'm going to try not to sound like a jilted lover here, bear with me) If you're not already a parts author, you have to ask for permission to submit a part to the Parts Tracker. I've been told translated-from-other-CAD (i.e. messy) parts (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts editing made easy, anyone? —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
