 | | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin L. Clague wrote: [much snippage] (...) The above example parallel directory structure is just an example. I see that there are many possible alternate solutions... POV directory as sigbling of LDRAW subdirectory, where the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) One thing the project clearly needs right now is a small homepage to tell what it's all about, and outline what people can do to help. That might help pull in more active participants than a lone CVS archive. I've seen your pages, Larry. I bet (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <much snippage> (...) As Orion described, we'd rather put the ability of using POV or whatever other renderer you choose outside the LDraw file format, and outside the LDraw format parts library. If we (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) The relatively easy solution on how to make the wrench tool and, even more obvious, the (unofficial) patterned maxifig heads - that solution has become undone. (...) The only thing that ever has frustrated me about LGEO is that I never ever (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) What's entailed? Do you want participants who can test but not do much else? (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Actually, the only Official Library parts that have embedded P-R SDL are some of Paul Easter torus primitives. Since nothing was ever done in the first place, nothing is being undone now. If you're like me and frustrated that LGEO is (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Only until 3rd party libraries (like LGEO) become available. ROSCO (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Too sad. If I got that complicated language correcly, this means that the problem presented at (URL) and was solved by embedded POV-code has now regressed to be un-solved again. /Tore (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Yes, and if you want to join the project team let me know (this goes for anyone else as well). (...) -Orion (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) OK, but whether or not the P-R SDL code was out of whack would not affect the usability of parts as parts within LDraw format programs themselves, right? (0)Only affect the accuracy or completeness or error state of transformation (by tools (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Yay! The right place for POV code is in external libraries. Does this mean (URL) is going to be developed? Is a new L3P release in the works? It's been over a year and a half since this tantalizing message was posted. :^) (URL) Don (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Basically, The POV team controls the syntax, functionality, and implementation of the POV-Ray Scene Description Language (P-R SDL) format. While the POV Team is very good at maintaining backwards compatibility, they have in the past change the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Could you give a bit more info on the compatability issues (or a pointer to where they're discussed)? (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) has recently discussed the issue of embedded POV-Ray code in Official Parts Library files. After careful consideration and with inputs from leading non-LSC members, most notably Lars Hassing and Chris Dee, we (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Friction pins no friction?
|
|
(...) Look's good, Though you may want to just make the primitive have the friction bits alone without the connector. That way you possibly could be able to use it on parts like 6558 and 32054 as well. (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Friction pins no friction?
|
|
I have submitted the first in the line of confric# primitive to the LDraw Parts Tracker. (URL) is use the the part 43093 Axle Pin with Friction. (URL) should give people a better idea of what I have planned. With this new line of primitives we will (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
(...) OK - I have moved the existing x322.dat out of the way (to x289.dat). Chris (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
(...) When I tried to upload this part, it got rejected because there was a x322.dat already on the PT.... Before this rejection I have uploaded two subparts s\x322s01.dat and s\x322s02.dat. Niels (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) Well, I hope the final syntax for the color definition statement will allow some space for programs to support their own special syntactic needs. So you hopefully won't need a super-custom meta-statement for LDView, just a special flavor for (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) The good side of the LSC is that with the reduced number of people, you are hopefully able to actually come to a consensus in a reasonable time frame. The bad side is that since the discussions are private, you have to deal with hecklers like (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
