|
|
 | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| (...) I double-checked the primitives I had, to make sure they were OK. I zipped them up, and posted them on my Geocities site. You can grab a copy from (URL). Steve (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Technic Link vs Technic Rod
|
| The name of part 2637 "Technic Link 16L" is a bit problematic, because it interferes with the 3711 "Technic Link Chain" and 3873 "Technic Link Tread". Would it make sense to rename 2637 to "Technic Rod 16L"? That way, it would appear in it's own sub (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| Gary Williams wrote... (...) Steve, please note that Gary pointed out that some parts are badly formatted... "l3p -check" doesn't complain, as "0 CERTIFY BFC CW" is a perfectly legal comment :-) I don't think l3p easily can be made to check this, "0 (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC revisited
|
| (...) Cool! (...) will do. (...) I'm not understanding the problem. I've made versions of the sloping cylinders that are bfc-compliant. (...) Do you mean the problem (not just with sloped cylinders) that sometimes primitives are used for the outside (...) (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: LDGLite bug report (yes, one more)
|
| (...) I think it's gonna be a while before I can get organized enough to roll a new release, but this edge line option, as well as the camera and near/far clip plane controls, have been added to the sources if you want to try it out. You can get (...) (23 years ago, 17-Aug-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
