 | | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) Sure, I just chose | because ; is allowed in filenames. /Lars (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) I like this idea. Can you support delimiting paths by ';' instead of '|'? ';' is more in line with the delimitation in the PATH environment varible. -Orion (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
Several users have asked for an option to L3P for specifying additional search paths for parts. LDView already has implemented "Extra Search Dirs" to search after the usual ones. I think it would be of common interest and for the benefit of the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Whoops. Silly me. It's amazing the tricks memory can play on you ;-). (...) While this is still probably do-able, I think my original argument about the possible creation of future tags still holds (unless you're also agreeing to the enforced (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
I Like it :) It is a great solution to a sticky problem. -Chuck (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Thanks. I implemented it that way, and it seems to be working so far, so I believe that everything is fine. (...) You're too right. Unfortunately, I can go for a while and do a really good job of commenting, and then I'll slack off for one (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
I have these comments: 1) Why not use COLOURDEF in stead of introducing the'!' ? 2) CHROME | METALLIC | RUBBER seem to me like materials. Are they just shortcuts for convenience? 3) It should be possible to specify RGB color in decimal. Either r,g,b (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) Yeah, well, it's been three years since the last L3P release, so I guess it's about time for another :-) The current v1.3 release has proven to be quite stable, so I have just collected and implemented a list of wishes from various users. (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Since det(AB)=det(A)det(B) I don't think it matters whether you check the determinant (mirroring) at each level or the final level. Too bad you didn't add a comment in your old code :-) I often beat myself for not adding more elaborate (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
