Subject:
|
Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:06:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1053 times
|
| |
|
|
Lutz Uhlmann <uhlmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de> writes:
> 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
I know, but I was talking about the three libraries in the statement
above, not L3P.
> 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.
True.
> So the discussion shlul be about joining efforts, not the parts.
Exactly.
> 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 is exactly the reason for joining efforts: to handle all parts, yet
use the best quality parts where possible. For example, an LGEO plate
has the little holes on the bottom under the studs, making it much more
realistic than an L3P'd plate with no little holes.
> 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.
L3P already uses primitive substitution, so it would probably be easier
to add a call to LGEO from L3P. While I appreciate your efforts in your
coverter, I believe your true forte is your realistic parts library. L3P
is easier to use than L2P: the camera and lights are easier to place and
there is a quality switch to make processing faster. I think time would
be better spent trying to combine efforts rather than trying to duplicate
all the pros of L3P.
Combined effort could lead to one amazing program instead of having
many competing slightly lesser programs. L3P, which I'm pretty sure is
the most commonly used, can use some improvements, such as the use of
.inc files for primitives and parts, more realistic finishes, and maybe,
more realistic lighting.
> 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.
To be frank, I haven't used L2P very much, because there are always a
couple parts missing. For the landscape, though, L2P, being simpler than
L3P, didn't run out of memory, so it was my only choice.
I hope I haven't offended Lutz or Lars, I just tried to share my view on
the issue.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
