|
|
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) OK, that sounds reasonable -- it's something that a clean-up program could look for, even though it's not practical for a rendering program to do the same. Steve (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) Whew! Only one of those files is mine! :\ (...) True. (...) I don't think that's necessary. If a subfile is not certified, then the renderer will not apply BFC processing to the subfile. Besides, if having all subfiles certified was a (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Smoke-Clear color code (was: Problem with 1-4con1.dat)
|
| (...) I don't think there is a sanctioned color-code yet ... checking ... checking ... nope, nothing in the color table in the FAQ. Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Unless someone complains otherwise, the proper LDraw color-code for 'smoked-transparent', AKA (...) (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: what is legos official view of ldraw?
|
| (...) I'd say it would be ok even then, imo. (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Syntax error in official part 754.dat?
|
| (...) There was a discussion about this awhile ago. Since LDraw will interpret these lines as subfile commands, the lines are syntactically correct. Badly formed, but not invalid. And 754.dat is getting fixed in the 2000-01 update! Steve (24 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
