 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Developers! What softwares? ([LSC] Colour Def...)
|
|
(...) Why not just RGB instead of the not too intuitive VALUE? (I mean, it colud be any parameter value) Developers, what softwares will be updated to support this? L3P? ML-Cad? L3Lab? LDView? ...? /Tore (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't want to specify that some parameters are order-specific, and others aren't. I'd rather they are all one way or the other. Goes back to easier 'correct' parsing. However, I'm sure the entries in ldconfig.ldr will always have their tags (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, the spec says just the opposite, that tags (keywords) are not case-sensitive: (...) That seems reasonable. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
