 | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Well, if thats how you really feel, then why even bother to "write up a spec/reference page on 0 IFDEF" at all. The instant you put the line: 0 IFDEF <code> in a part file you're blessing a non-ldraw extension. The <code> is by definition a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| In a nutshell, 'namespaces'. Switching among parts libraries to get different versions (or different data) should be an application capability, not the individual part file. (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) I'm not following. Are you agreeing with the idea of using embedded POV-Ray code, or having separate file libraries? I *think* you agree with the second, am I right? The one thing we gain by having embedded POV-Ray code is the ability to have (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Right! I have always thought of the "0 IFNDEF L3PPOV" as a way to utilize most of the normal LDraw lines (that L3P can convert to equivalent POV code) and only replace a small tricky curvy section by some POV code that would look better. This (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code? [DAT]
|
| I see now that your problem is difficult to solve. Sorry I tried to put it into a nutshell, Steve. My preference would be to design an auxiliary file for each case, and markup the LDRAW part in a very general way, so that future programs could (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) No big deal. I just wasn't sure which nut you were shelling. :) (...) Hmm. The problem is that there would be a lot of cases - we've already got a way to handle general stuff (by creating 'primitive' files). And my (general) preference is to (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Huh...? This is getting too complicated, lost me! Most of you have seen what I have done with adding POV part descriptions to parts. I believe that I was using them correctly with the "established" methods. To make much change would be too (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) I think where I want to go with it, is to keep things simple and limited. At least for now. Embedded POV-Ray code should not make references to L3P-defined objects or definitions. It should stick strictly with primitive operations. Maybe later (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| |
