 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | (...) I've been keeping clear on the dither issue so far, because I didn't have a strong opinion one way or another. However, the more I think about it, the more I think we're not seeing the forest through the trees. Because of this, I vote we (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | (...) I could go for that. Simpler is better! Of course that means the METALLIC (or PEARLY) tag needs an argument to define the color of the embedded bits. If you want it to be the same color as the substrate, just use the same color code. Don (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I've most recently used dithering to simulate chrome/metal/metallic parts. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) Well, I don't think that qualifies as an argument for its inclusion in the new !COLOUR statement, since those are already covered by the more precise pre-defined materials. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure you're right there. I think Steve may have been trying to achieve a specific dithered look, different from the effect created by the pre-defined metal code in say ldview or ldglite, probably to better differentiate some static (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
