Subject:
|
Re: L3P user primitive substitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:16:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
428 times
|
| |
|
|
Since there hasn't been discussion of this topic, and more than two weeks
have elapsed, can we assume that:
A) The proposed revision is acceptable
B) The proposed revision is un-acceptable
C) No one knows
LMKWYT,
Steve
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> Dear All,
>
> Currently, there are a number of files on the Parts Tracker which include
> embedded POV-Ray, using the 0 L3P meta-statement.
>
> I've been emailing with Lars, Paul and Chris about some concerns I have with
> this approach. Basically, before we allowed this approach in the official
> parts library, I wanted to be sure we were taking the best approach.
>
> Through the email, I've been convinced that embedding POV-Ray code in part
> files is a good idea. The alternatives would be:
>
> 1. Not address the issue at all, and not support any method for substituting
> solid-modeling code for LDraw code.
> 2. Maintain a separate library of POV-Ray files, or at least a separate
> library POV-Ray enhanced LDraw files.
>
> I don't think either of these alternatives is desireable.
>
> One issue I still have is with the specific syntax used. I think the
> current syntax is too specific to L3P. What would be better is a more
> generic meta-statement, that could be used for other purposes in the future.
>
> So I'd like to propose that the current syntax be replaced with the following:
>
> > 0 IFDEF <tag>
> > Conditional section begin
> > Begin non-LDraw statements in comment statement fields
> >
> > 0 IFNDEF <tag>
> > Conditional section begin
> > Begin DAT statements
> >
> > 0 ELSE
> > Switch between above section modes
> >
> > 0 ENDIF
> > Terminate conditional section
>
> In the current situation, <tag> would always be POVRAY. In the future,
> other possible tag-values may be determined, such as level-of-detail settings.
>
> So, that's all I've got to say for now. Comments, anyone?
>
> Steve
>
> In lugnet.cad.ray, 12 months ago, Chuck Sommerville writes:
> > Awhile back, I persuaded Lars Hassing to add a feature to L3P. I wanted the
> > ability to substutite POV language commands in the comments of a .DAT file
> > that could be used in place of the DAT primitives when rendering through
> > POV. This would allow users to add native POV commands that could render
> > better than the triangles and polygons defined in DAT files. Since the
> > commands are inbedded in comment fields, and only recognized by L3P, they
> > have no effect of any other tools. Lars was waiting untill I tested the
> > commands to announce the feature. The good news, is you probably already
> > have the ability to use these features. He built them into Version 1.2
> > 20000616.
> >
> > The commands are
> > 0 L3P IFPOV
> > Conditional section begin
> > Begin POV statements in comment statement fields
> >
> > 0 L3P IFNOTPOV
> > Conditional section begin
> > Begin DAT statements
> >
> > 0 L3P ELSEPOV
> > Switch between above section modes
> >
> > 0 L3P ENDPOV
> > Terminate conditional section
> >
> > After running L3P, you can see in the POV file conditionals like
> > if(0) or if(1)
> > To see the alternate version for comparison, just change the constant in
> > these conditionals.
> >
> > If you don't understand any of this, don't worry, I am following this post
> > up with some examples. Remember to get L3P V1.2 or latter to use thse.
> >
> > -Chuck
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution
|
| Dear All, Currently, there are a number of files on the Parts Tracker which include embedded POV-Ray, using the 0 L3P meta-statement. I've been emailing with Lars, Paul and Chris about some concerns I have with this approach. Basically, before we (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
