 | | Re: Library Specifications for Canvas Parts
|
|
(...) Canvas - (URL) - thickness: 1LDU looks too thick to me. Have we settled on this, or is it (...) I measured the Wagon Cover with a caliper rule (as I always do) and 0.4 mm seamed to me much more appropriate than 0.2 mm. (...) IMHO a flat (...) (16 years ago, 8-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Library Specifications for Canvas Parts
|
|
(...) Yeah, MLCad has rendering problems at 0.5LDU. Oddly, it seems to be able to cope with a 0.25LDU thick sticker. Alex (16 years ago, 7-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Library Specifications for Canvas Parts
|
|
(...) A note on the thickness. If the part is BFC'd, then in theory there is no minimum thickness that is required to prevent rendering artifacts. In reality, you'll get artifacts on renderers that don't have BFC support if you go too thin. If (...) (16 years ago, 7-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Library Specifications for Canvas Parts
|
|
So...I'm working on the two tepee covers (this is gonna take a while... :-) and: - 'Cloth' (Peeron) or 'Canvas' (Bricklink) ? - thickness: 1LDU looks too thick to me. Have we settled on this, or is it still up for grabs? I'm trying 0.5LDU right now, (...) (16 years ago, 7-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2008/2009 LDraw.org Steering Committee: SteerCo reconfirmed for new term
|
|
(...) Hi Richie, being also one of LDraw's treasurer I double checked Tim's bookkeeping. His statement on LDraw's credit entry is not entirely correct. It is not a "long series of zeroes" but exactly: 0.-- USD or 0,-- Euro. Also the figures on the (...) (16 years ago, 5-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2008/2009 LDraw.org Steering Committee: SteerCo reconfirmed for new term
|
|
(...) Dear Richie, As the LDraw organisation receives no funds and has no costs (other than those to its volunteers) the financial records involve a long series of zeroes. As I know you have experience in that line of work I'm sure the SteerCo would (...) (16 years ago, 1-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2008/2009 LDraw.org Steering Committee: SteerCo reconfirmed for new term
|
|
(...) I note that article doesn't include financial records. Per Tim's suggestion that questions directed to the various positions could be posted here, could the Steerco advise where the financial records have been published? Thanks Richie Dulin CO (...) (16 years ago, 1-Jul-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New license for the LDraw All-In-One installer
|
|
(...) You are right, it is not a bugfix, but better coding. I have installed on my machine version 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of POV-Ray and all have the same "bad" coding line. So there have to be somebody who has changed that, but I think this do not affect (...) (16 years ago, 30-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New license for the LDraw All-In-One installer
|
|
(...) Why do you call this a bug fix? Is #ifndef not a valid POV command? Both versions do exactly the same thing, as far as I can tell, just via #ifdef for POV 3.5, and #ifndef for LDraw. --Travis (16 years ago, 30-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New license for the LDraw All-In-One installer
|
|
(...) That's exactly what I was thinking about this issue. If we need a third party permission then we need it from POV-Ray Team. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 30-Jun-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
