Subject:
|
Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 09:06:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1092 times
|
| |
|
|
Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> I agree with joining libraries, but the creators of the libraries might
> not, especially when parts are in both libraries. Then which do you
> keep?
First to make clear:
L2P uses a library of parts, about 630 by the latest update
L3P uses LDraw parts and converts them directly, as I know, so
with L3P you can get all parts which are in your parts-directory.
So the discussion shlul be about joining efforts, not the parts.
> It may also take a lot of effort to match the scale, coordinate
> system, and insertion point of the parts. I know it was a real pain for
> me trying to add an Anton Raves minifig to one of my L3P'd models, and to
> mix L2P and L3P output for my Fallingwater landscape.[1]
> How do the library authors feel about this? If I remember correctly,
> Lars had a combined LGEO-L3P in mind originally, but Lutz was reluctant.
> I have no idea how Anton or Paul feel.
I think i wrote to Lars as he came out with L3P, but this somehow
got stuck and ended with nothing.
Of course it is hard to give up something you created on your own.
I spent thousands of hours designing the parts, and still do when
I have the time to. Unfortunately this is not much at these months.
There are about 40 or 50 new parts waiting to be released, and all
the renumbering to be included in L2P, I hope to manage this by end
of August. Sometimes otherwise I fear that nobody is interested in
L2P anymore, since L3P can handle all parts theroretically when the
come out, even unofficial ones, this is an advantage of course.
This discussion gives me back some motivation to spent more efforts
in the development of L2P. I already thought about doing something
about the missing parts, like adding a call to L3P for missing parts
(this would free the user from the scaling problem) or adding a
similar method of on-the-fly creating missing parts directly, still
with the goal to be about 95% complete in parts, 100% is nearly
impossible with all the updates.
So i I add a call to L3P, L2P will not work completely with Linux,
or is there a L3P for Linux ? Adding the algorithm directly into L2P
will take some mor time. I will think about it and let me assure that
L2P still is in progress, even when you did not hear from me lately.
I have to say I am glad to hear L2P being still used, and I am sorry
for not releasing anything new since a long time. I fact I have nearly
zero spare time until end of August, and already thought nobody still
is interested in L2P, but now I know better.
Thanks for being patient, I hope to come up with new features the next
time,
Lutz
--
: Lego: DU,HM,BV FS,TO+++ TR+++(4564) BO,FL,PA,SP,CA,PI,AQ+
: WW>++ MT+++(5571) TC+++(8862) MOC>++ #++++ S++ LS++
: H!? A HKb LM+ VLr YB72m
:
: E-Mail: uhlmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de
: WWW: http://titan.informatik.uni-bonn.de/~uhlmann/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
| (...) you (...) I know, but I was talking about the three libraries in the statement above, not L3P. (...) True. (...) Exactly. (...) This is exactly the reason for joining efforts: to handle all parts, yet use the best quality parts where possible. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
| (...) Both l2p and l3p have their advantages depending on the goal of the user. l3p is great if you want a rendered version of a model, no matter the parts. l2p is great if you want a more detailed/smooth render and the parts are available. Thanks (...) (25 years ago, 17-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
| (...) each (...) I agree with joining libraries, but the creators of the libraries might not, especially when parts are in both libraries. Then which do you keep? It may also take a lot of effort to match the scale, coordinate system, and insertion (...) (25 years ago, 14-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
