 | | Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Mark Kennedy
|
| | | I was thinking over this the other day, and thought maybe could be some sort of line type p that would work the same as the type 1 lines, but istead take a function instead of a piece. This would be for primitves that the drawing program replaces (...) (23 years ago, 5-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) For a linetype to include a 'function' in it's definition, we'd need to figure out what 'language' the functions would be written in. It's a fairly wide-open proposal. More likely, we'll add specific curved-surface primitives[1] at some point. (...) (23 years ago, 6-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | (...) Hi Mark, My two questions are: 1. How would behave the original LDraw program regarding this proposed extension? 2. How would you ensure meaningful polygon decomposition? In particular how would you ensure correct assembling of primitives and (...) (23 years ago, 6-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | Time to throw fuel on the fire. Why are we still latching ourselves on to the original dos LDRAW program. Isn't it time the LDraw community graduated to Windows/Mac based programs and let the DOS program fade away from usage. Much like other (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) By all means, a good discussion :-) (...) Here's how I see it. As a community we need to answer this question and act accordingly. What is the role of 'LDraw?' I see 'LDraw' as the file format and parts library, and its role is as a foundation (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Ldraw future (was: Idea, using functions for some primitives.) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | I completly agree with Tim, with one exception. The Lego parts coming out now are especially complex and involve patterns and colors that extend beyond the original LDraw colors set forth in James's program. I think a relaxation of the hard coded (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Ldraw future (was: Idea, using functions for some primitives.) —Franklin W. Cain
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd disagree with this. "Dithered colors" has been part of the "standard" LDraw package ever since I started playing with it. The only (minor/potential) problem with using dithered colors is that you have to stick the darned code for the (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Thomas Burger
|
| | | | | (...) here is my opinoin on this dos program we all use.. LEdit. pro's - its fast (faster then MLCAD ( sorry mike i just dont like it ) ) - easy to use -portable cons - use of 16 colors? (dont forget dithered based colors.) - yes 8+3 filename format (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Idea, using functions for some primitives. —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | (...) No, please don't, I still use it! (And I can't believe I'm the only one). With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (23 years ago, 7-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
