 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) OK, I'm alright with that. (...) If that's a needed parameter, I'd rather have it follow the METALLIC keyword. (...) I'm ok with that, too. Is '50%' really an adequate description? There can be many brush patterns... Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) There had been discussion previously about differentiating true comments from meta-statements. The LSC agreed that it seems like a good idea to start prefixing meta-keywords with a punctuation mark, and we chose !. And !COLOUR is shorter than (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I was considering the possibility of (patterned) parts including custom color definitions, which would only apply to that part. (...) That's a good question. Think about this: what if file A also has some surfaces hard-coded to color (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) Me, too. This also solves an issue for having .dat files not too detailed, like the rounded metal parts on 12V train conductor parts. Now the .dat files can contain a square box, which is fast drawn in construction programs and the .inc files (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I think it's a good idea! The only thing I think needs looking at is the naming - should it be dedicated to L3P or to the renderer, eg: RENDERPARTS\POVRAY RENDERPARTS\BRYCE etc. That way, people can provide their own program to do (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
