 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I believe that the only problem is that these matrixes can't be inverted ! I'not sure if placing a one on the specific place has exactly the same graphic behaviour ? can someone confirm ? (...) Use my proposal: 0 CERTIFY BFC MTX where MTX is (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I have to read this better to make an opinion, later ! (...) Now you don't like local clipping anymore ? too or tree mails before you were in favour or am I mistaken ? I should we make complicated spec for clipping, just because of one stupid (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
I read the current proposal, and I have this to say: I don't agree with the following paragraph when an entire branch has to have cliping on to be able to be culled, don't think so. ( I know about the invert case, solution required ) 4 Control of (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I agree with the default from the start, I proposed them, somewhere ! (...) Agreed! but that's NOT currently written that way, is it ? (...) NO it is NOT ! read on. (...) I know that the branch only would be required, but I don't agree with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
As you know, The Guild of Bricksmiths, (URL) a big user of LDraw compatible tools, since Guild members are producing instructions for almost all of their kits. From time to time a Guildsman runs into a part he or she would really like to use in a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread ! (...) It seems that it is currently on version 9 ! isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK. (...) Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, I taught you were against local (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
(...) Didn't answer the question, but moving on. (...) That's good to know. (...) Yes, but the proposed standard doesn't list the several options for a specific issue thta asn't been agreed iet. List the options, that's my point, because if you (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDS ver 0.31 - Added PIPE
|
|
New version again. Same URL as usual. (URL) /Tore (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: A discovery? and part 3475
|
|
(...) Oops, sorry 'bout that. (...) Wow, you're working with the horse? You have my deepest respect! I think that using one tool or another is mostly a matter of taste. I haven't written LDraw-mode to compete with anybody else's tool, but because I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: A discovery? and part 3475
|
|
(...) Not just 4-4edge - it takes all between 1/16 through 16/16 and 1/48 through 48/48. (...) I see (I think...) If the two arbitrary connected curves run parallelly, I use LDS' EXTRUDE function, if not, I have to make arrangements like this in (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
