 | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code? —Erik Olson
|
| | | 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? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) 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? —Paul Easter
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
