 | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
(...) I'm not following. Are you agreeing with the idea of using embedded POV-Ray code, or having separate file libraries? I *think* you agree with the second, am I right? The one thing we gain by having embedded POV-Ray code is the ability to have (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
In a nutshell, 'namespaces'. Switching among parts libraries to get different versions (or different data) should be an application capability, not the individual part file. (24 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
(...) Well, if thats how you really feel, then why even bother to "write up a spec/reference page on 0 IFDEF" at all. The instant you put the line: 0 IFDEF <code> in a part file you're blessing a non-ldraw extension. The <code> is by definition a (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Don Heyse writes: [snipped things down a bit] (...) Generally, yeah. But mostly to the extent that I haven't thought it through enough. (...) That could work, but IMO only pushes the issue to the side. To some extent, LDraw.org (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
(...) So it appears as if we agree that L3P-generated objects don't really belong in official LDRAW part files. Once again this brings us back to the 0 INCLUDE suggestion. Imagine that ldraw.org (or someone else) distributes a separate set of part (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
(...) No, I meant the POVRay code referring to L3P-generated objects. By allowing this code in official part files, we'd be endorsing language that hasn't been generally discussed and reviewed. Not that I see any particular problem with the code. (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
(...) Which part of it aren't you keen about? Is it all the extra stuff in the dat file? If so, then perhaps this is a good time to dredge up my 0 INCLUDE suggestion yet again. ;) (URL) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
|
(...) OK. I'll write up a spec/reference page on 0 IFDEF. It will include the following metacommands: 0 IFDEF <code> 0 IFNDEF <code> 0 ELSE 0 ENDIF Should there be a 0 ELSEIFDEF and/or 0 ELSEIFNDEF? (...) Steve (24 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Problem with Seam Width
|
|
(...) If you are thinking about making instructions, I would strongly suggest at least checking out MEGAPOV's find_edges function. Even without using the LGEO library, the instructions output is far and away the best I have seen so far for (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Problem with Seam Width
|
|
(...) The LGEO parts have rounded edges. That's why it doesn't make sense to have a "seam" between the parts. And Mega-POV will not be able to identify the edges simply because there are no edges! I you want to use the edges highlighting function in (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
