Subject:
|
Re: New LDConfig.ldr color file
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:36:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
16675 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Willy Tschager wrote:
>
> > * Last time we stuck to backwards compatibility for a no longer updated prog we
> > had to separate dithers colors into subfiles.
>
> That is just so not true.
>
> > Welcome to 2009.
>
> Well then, welcome to my reality.
>
> Viewing just a small portion of Datsville on my AMD1100, for example
> TOWN-10.ldr, takes 1.8 seconds in L3Lab. But several minutes in LDView - if it
> doesn't crash. I am unemployed and with absolutely no hope whatsoever of getting
> a fulltime job that will make me able to afford a new PC. (And anyway, I doubt
> that a top modern state of the art home PC comes close to 1.8 seconds in
> LDView.)
That is not correct. The 1.8 sec are the drawing time. If you will have a look
into 'statistics' you will see that most of the time the loading will take and
then 1.8 sec. for the drawing is used.
So this comparison is not correct, but you are right if you say LDView is not so
fast as L3Lab. But for me the result of LDView is much better. If you only need
a viewer to see wheather the parts are correct build and then use POV-Ray to
create the picture, I believe that L3Lab is the better tool. But for all other
usage I would prefer LDView.
cu
mikeheide
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New LDConfig.ldr color file
|
| (...) That is just so not true. (...) Well then, welcome to my reality. Viewing just a small portion of Datsville on my AMD1100, for example TOWN-10.ldr, takes 1.8 seconds in L3Lab. But several minutes in LDView - if it doesn't crash. I am (...) (15 years ago, 11-Aug-09, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
