 | | Re: Problems submitting upadeted versions of official parts?
|
|
(...) Actually, I have to say, Mark's been pretty darn patient. :) But thanks for sticking up for me and the parts tracker. Steve (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems submitting upadeted versions of official parts?
|
|
(...) Thanks. When I didn't get any response from the magnet and didn't see it in the tracker I was worried that it didn't get through. What were the problems with it? I also sent in 2560 some time ago and am now submitting a 3647. (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Digging up an old thread (was: The geometry of minifigs)
|
|
(...) I have started working on an improved arm part - and agree this will need to use a new number to aboid backward compatibility issues. I'll try and post work-in-progress here when I have something worthy of comment. Chris (22 years ago, 28-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DModeler 1.0 Beta 1 now available
|
|
(...) Great I'm downloading now, It look too hard for me but I'll try it. Great piece of work. (...) (22 years ago, 27-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DModeler 1.0 Beta 1 now available
|
|
Roland, On behalf of myself and other AFOL's thanks for writing this program! My first impression is that you spent a lot of time and effort developeing it. No problems to report with the installing on my winxp machine and your example projects look (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LD4DModeler 1.0 Beta 1 now available
|
|
I've decided to put it up regardless of the slow software rendering, hope you all have Video HW acceleration :) Needed information can be found in the same place as the zip with the setup (1.3MB). (URL) you like it and give me lot's of feedback and (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems submitting upadeted versions of official parts?
|
|
(...) Mark, The only files I've seen from you are a couple copies of the magnet, and now an updated 24 tooth gear. I never did anything with the magnet, because I disagreed with the change you made. The 24 tooth gear arrived Monday, I haven't had (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems submitting upadeted versions of official parts?
|
|
(...) Hi Mark, Do NOT attempt to directly submit updated parts using your userid! Do NOT change part number to force submission! This would result in more work for the administrator. May be he would resent you. Do not press him. Nothing urgent. Be (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Problems submitting upadeted versions of official parts?
|
|
How do I go about submitting upadted versions of officail parts? I have sent a few to parts@ldraw.org, but have yet to see any of them appear on the tracker. Maybe they should have several people in charge of looking over parts submitted to this (...) (22 years ago, 26-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Digging up an old thread (was: The geometry of minifigs)
|
|
(...) Note that it's probably not possible to make proper arms that are backwards compatible because of the hand placement on the ends. So we'd need to assign new id numbers to the arms... right? Either that or we break a few thousand files. It may (...) (22 years ago, 25-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker suggestion
|
|
(...) Thanks for pointing this out, Jacob. Just don't check the rest of the tracker's pages right away, ok? Steve (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Digging up an old thread (was: The geometry of minifigs)
|
|
(...) I would *love* it if someone were to redo the arms and hand with higher accuracy. :) Steve (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Digging up an old thread (was: The geometry of minifigs)
|
|
(...) I have had thougt about this and I also think this is worth to be taken over. But I don't have time to realize this. If no one has a something against this you could make realistic arm parts. CU Bernd (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker suggestion
|
|
(...) The HTML coding is not quite perfect. Take a look at (URL) get an idea about the problems. Jacob (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Digging up an old thread (was: The geometry of minifigs)
|
|
(...) Considering the accuracy to which the torso and arm parts are modeled... is it possible at all to do realistic poses (like an ABS minifig) without nasty gaps and collisions? I've had trouble doing this before, but only just realized how bad it (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker suggestion
|
|
(...) Try (URL). :) I'd been thinking about this for awhile, but it was usually tied in with a whole "My Parts Tracker" kind of page. Which I never put together. Getting the review information was relatively easy. Steve (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker suggestion
|
|
Yes, exactly what I mean. Access would be through the same password interface for submitting/reviewing. -Orion (22 years ago, 24-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker suggestion
|
|
(...) Do you mean you'd like to have a list of reviews that you've posted? More precisely, a list of parts you have reviewed? Steve (22 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: new rounded slopes...
|
|
(...) x464 - Slope Rounded 1 x 6 (URL) LMKWYT! ;-D Thanks, Franklin (22 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Parts Tracker suggestion
|
|
A smaal little suggestion for the Parts Tracker: Some sort of "what have I signed on to" page. This would make it much easier to find the parts that have a hold placed on it. -Orion (22 years ago, 23-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Checking 48\1-4ring4.dat
|
|
(...) Wow. Just 4 seconds between the first and second review? Amazing. :) It's now re-certified. It's always amusing to watch the certified count jump when a single file is reviewed. Steve (22 years ago, 21-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Checking 48\1-4ring4.dat
|
|
(...) Done. Now we just need to get the file re-certified. I cast the first re-vote.... ;) Paul (22 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Checking 48\1-4ring4.dat
|
|
(...) Steve, He's uploaded the file, it's been certified, and it's ready for admin review... Thanks, Franklin (22 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I never intended to imply that it should replace type 5 lines. In addition to the problem of backwards compatibility, this will only work for BFC-certified parts. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate Type 5 line algorithm and other BFC questions...
|
|
(...) Just check to see if the determinant of the matrix is negative. If it is, the matrix involves mirroring. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Thanks for that explanation, however I think we still need to include type 5 lines in parts, so that programs which don't implement this technique (eg ldraw) can still display the curved edges correctly. Programs which do implement it can (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate Type 5 line algorithm and other BFC questions...
|
|
[snip] > > Normally you don't bother to enable Z buffer writing when drawing the > transparent surfaces, because they are the last thing drawn, and it won't > matter. However, it doesn't hurt anything to enable it, other than slowing > it down a (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Cool. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I didn't realize this about opengl. Steve "please speak slowly and clearly" Bliss (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) I understand what you are saying, but it won't happen that way if Z buffer writing is enabled during the drawing of the transparent surfaces. The transparent surfaces aren't really transparent. They're just blended with whatever is behind (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) The backside wireframe elements *will* be drawn, that's the point of what Kyle was talking about. The idea is to draw the wireframe of the backside surfaces and it will all be hidden by the frontside surfaces, *except* for the lines around the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Checking 48\1-4ring4.dat
|
|
(...) My code matches your code exactly. Could you submit your file to the tracker? But please add an Author line for Sascha, he gets first-mover props. Steve (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Checking 48\1-4ring4.dat [DAT]
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree. My Excel spreadsheet created file is varying by 0.0001 to 0.0002. Paul 0 Hi-Res Ring 4 x 0.25 0 Name: 48\1-4ring4.dat 0 Author: Paul Easter 0 Unofficial Primitive 0 BFC CERTIFY CW 4 16 4 0 0 3.9658 0 0.5221 4.9572 0 0.6526 5 0 0 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Actually, transparent surface should work fine. As long as they are set to write to the Z buffer when drawn, and their outlines are drawn with Z buffer testing enabled, they should work fine. The wireframe parts that aren't supposed to be (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) One problem: transparent surfaces would show the wireframe backside. :\ Steve (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
I was reading through this more, and while I still don't know exactly how it all works, I think I stumbled onto something. > I dont know how many of you have come across this technique before. I > remember finding an OpenGL demo that did this kind (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Yeah, the stencil buffer, that's gotta be it. If you've got BFC working then you can use the stencil buffer to count how many times an edge is draw in GL_LINE mode. Edges on back facing triangles won't be drawn, so you'll only count one edge (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) That sounds like glPolygonOffset which would be part of the solution because it allows the edges to look clean. We all use that already. (...) I can see how you might accomplish some of that by manipulating glEdgeFlag when you define your (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) OpenGL has glPolygonOffset, which does what you describe by allowing you to move the polygons further away in the Z direction, where the amount they move can depend on the slope of the polygon in the Z direction. This works great, and I use it (...) (22 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) The obvious case where it's useful is studs - without these lines, viewing any brick from the standard "oblique" position above & to the side, you would see a circle at the top & bottom of each stud, but no sides, which IMHO would not look (...) (22 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Type 5 Lines?
|
|
(...) Well, I believe that there is something called a 'Z offset' that can be used not to actually move the geometry, but to make sure the lines appear 'on top' of the faces. Before I go more into this I need to back up a bit. I currently use the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
