 | | l3lab on linux
|
|
Well, I wanted to participate in the part voting, so I decided to try and run l3lab on my RH linux, using wine. It did start up, and seems to work - but every time I try to open a file, I get messages "Could not fine xxxx.dat Referenced by ...." the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) It's probably a good idea to add the sizing information. (...) There's also a fix in this update to rename the old 'Technic Connector Locking' to 'Technic Toggle Joint Locking'. (...) There is precedence on using the part name to differentiate (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) Ooo, I like it. We'd flag which files are always "right-side-out" and which ones might be mis-inverted by legacy part-files. That doesn't break the reference-chain dependency entirely, but it does allow us to specify where it must apply, (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Part numbers wanted
|
|
Can anyone tell me the part numbers for the following click-hinge pieces (they're all found in the little town digger set.) Hinge Brick 1 X 2 Locking Double Hinge Brick 1 X 4 Locking Double Hinge Brick 2 X 2 Locking w/ one Finger on Side Thanks for (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:FsGCEz.42y@lugnet.com... (...) least (...) have (...) Is (...) mention (...) example (...) tread (...) those (...) odd.) (...) good (...) decision (...) a (...) time (...) But (...) a (...) to (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) I have a few comments: 2717.dat - Technic Seat Should we call this part "Technic Seat 3 x 2 Base" for clarity? I'm aware that theere is only one technic seat at the moment, but this might change, plus a more descriptive name may be in place. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
[FUT lugnet.cad.dev] I've (finally) posted the page for voting on the next parts update. Before you run off to check things out, I've got a couple of items of business: First off, I want to extend apologies for taking so long on this thing. The last (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw Help Desk/Reference
|
|
Greetings The ldraw.org website is in serious need of a help section for troubleshooting installation problems. It seems that on a weekly basis I receive a few emails asking about the RTE200 and Error 003. I am not very technically up to par on (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC [DAT]
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:dq3sesgb6vsh8kd...4ax.com... (...) flips (...) than (...) with (...) for (...) in (...) This makes a lot of sense to me. You are right, checking one flag per part file should not take too (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Where is Part 4589.dat Cone 1 x 1?
|
|
(...) I've got the 4589.dat file in my ldraw\parts directory, dated January 9, 1997. This date indicates that 4589 should be in the ldraw.exe distribution file. Oh, wait: here's the problem. As of the LCAD 97-17 update, the Cone 1x1 part was moved (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Where is Part 4589.dat Cone 1 x 1?
|
|
Hi, Playing with Ldraw yesterday I couldn't find the part 4589.dat Cone 1 x 1 in my Parts directory. I thought my Parts dirtectory were corrupted and reinstalled everything from James' ldraw.exe and all updates (lp97-13 ... -17, 10 updates in '98 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subparts for Black Falcon and Wolfpack Patterns ?
|
|
(...) Let me rephrase that... I just make the design from the shields 50% smaller. (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subparts for Black Falcon and Wolfpack Patterns ?
|
|
(...) I would prefer that you do that, because you can get the sizes right. I just used 0.5x for the scaling on the shields. (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subparts for Black Falcon and Wolfpack Patterns ?
|
|
(...) weekend), (...) could (...) I am proposing an alternative way of handling the castle logos which are common to the shields, torsos and flags. I have put the logos into subparts. It also seems to make sense to synchronise the Pxx number across (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subparts for Black Falcon and Wolfpack Patterns ?
|
|
(...) That sounds like a reasonably good idea. :) Steve -- Reduce, reuse, recycle ... bits (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 71184 Bar 4.5L Straight is too short
|
|
(...) I hope the added length doesn't mess up any models... (but I suppose the short version made some of my models look weird on other people's machines :) (...) I'm flattered. Maybe I should attempt a complete part sometime. --Bram Bram Lambrecht (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Subparts for Black Falcon and Wolfpack Patterns ?
|
|
When I fix the bowties in the Black Falcon and Wolfpack shields (this weekend), would it be more sensible to make each pattern a subpart (or two), which could be shared between shields, torsos and flags, scaled appropriately? If I had done this to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC checking program (was Re: Some Words To BFC)
|
|
(...) Umm, it's a little more than that, but facing the faces is a very important part. Basically, I meant: 1. All polygons wound correctly 2. All subfile references clean Good point about primitives not being solid. I don't think a renderer (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Yes, it did. But I'm pretty sure that all important topics have been addressed (or re-addressed) since that thread started. (...) Yes, and today it will change to version 10. But version 4 was a big rewrite, where the language changed from (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Actually, the problem is that their determinant is 0, neither positive nor negative. So the renderer would have to disable BFC processing for any file with this kind of reference. Another problem (that L3P handles in most cases) is that (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Oh, good. :) I wasn't sure before, but after posting a follow-up to John today, I figured it out. Now, about those transparent parts with decorations... Steve (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I think we're using different meanings here. By 'local clipping', I mean the clip-setting in a subfile disappears when that subfile is finished. It is not carried back up to the superfile, and it is not reinstated if the same subfile is used (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Unless we have a solution to the invert case, the document's assertion is correct. (...) I think you are correct that NOWIND/UNKNOWN is not important/needed. For now, let's proceed assuming that decorations will be handled by using NOCLIP or (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I've kept thinking about it, and I don't see a solution. There are some algorithms that can figure out the normal/inverted question in some cases, but these algorithms would be too slow to implement in a rendering program. And they are not (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 71184 Bar 4.5L Straight is too short
|
|
(...) I don't have the fix, but I did locate it on lugnet.cad.dat.parts. Normally, I'd require you to e-mail me the fix before I'd put it in an official release, but since you're a good modeler, I'll let it go this once. Just don't tell anyone. ;) (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) OK, here's a counter-proposal: don't require all parts/primitives to be BFC'able, and allow both BFC-ready and BFC-not-ready files in the same rendering. This reintroduces the concept of having a single meta-statement at the start of each (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Performance Improvement [DAT]
|
|
(...) As I said before, in this case it's more correct to use 3-4disc primitive, to avoid the T type juntions. (...) Yes, cracks may appear ! Same problem like in a T type junction But has someone said, nothing like real/concrete testing, so here (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Performance Improvement
|
|
Steve: (...) I can't see how Rui's suggested change gives any problems at all and I don't mind a few percent speed increase. (...) And? Does the "diameter line" not cross the radius? If there is a significant risk of a misalignment, then we (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Leonardo Zide wrote: [...SNIP...] (...) Actually I think you missunderstood something (or maybe I did), but the 0 INVERSE meta command is to be used ONLY with file references, that is: 0 INVERSE 1 16 x y z a b c d e f g h i (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC checking program (was Re: Some Words To BFC)
|
|
I seem to be missing a required .dll file: MFC42D.DLL. Can you send this, or can I find it somewhere else? -John Van (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC [DAT]
|
|
(...) I don't mind that because I preprocess the files anyway and anyone who wants to get a good speed increase should do the same. But it's not a good idea to turn on/off BFC several times and in some cases, it's nicer to have the faces reversed. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | BFC checking program (was Re: Some Words To BFC)
|
|
(...) I'm assuming that you're calling "BFC-ready" primitives that have all faces in the same direction. Primitives are not closed volumes so you'll always be able to see the backfaces. (...) I agree technically it doesn't make much difference, I (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:a5mpess6nipq4bp...4ax.com... snip (...) Me too. -John Van (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 71184 Bar 4.5L Straight is too short
|
|
(...) Yeah, I fixed it once (and posted the fixed file), but I don't know if my fix ever made it to an official update... --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com ---...---oooo-----(_...o---...--- WWW: (URL) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:i86oessafp98dp6...4ax.com... (...) These are both very good criticisms of my proposal--so I'll just modify my proposal :) If we fix all the official parts, then the renderer doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) As someone pointed out once, it's not a big deal to get all windings the same before passing the data to OpenGL. Just swap the order of the points. For quads, switch points 2 and 4. For triangles, switch points 2 and 3. This could/should be (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 71184 Bar 4.5L Straight is too short
|
|
(...) I'll doublecheck this issue tonight. Seems like we had this discussion before, but I don't remember the details. Argh. Steve (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) The primitives should be the first thing fixed, in any case. :) I think it would be safe for the cleanup program to assume that primitives are BFC-ready. Which could be a help for automatic cleanup of part files. (...) Some technical points: (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) Would it help to get primitive files cleaned up, and then make use of what is known of the faces in the primitive to decide the orientation of faces in the part? What I mean is, if you follow a ray from the center of a face, and the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: The geometry of minifigs
|
|
(...) No, it doesn't. But it has the head, arms, hands, legs and hips. Fredrik (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
