 | | Re: Weird Logo Issue at L3P Quality Level 3 —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | (...) I believe that Lars agrees with you regarding the fact that we can't expect parts not to use mirroring. However, based on his knowledge of POV, fixing this would require a complete change in the way L3P works. It would have to internally (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Weird Logo Issue at L3P Quality Level 3 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) How many parts have this mirroring? I expect that the 4x8 wings are an example. Would it be possible to recreate the basic wing, without studs, as a sub-part, and then invoke it in the two actual wing files? The studs could be added in the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Weird Logo Issue at L3P Quality Level 3 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) [snip] Yes, that would certainly work. And for correct alignment of studs, it will sometimes be the only answer. For example, some parts (30373 is one of them) use mirror symmetry to create a subpart that is a fraction (like 1/4 or 1/8) of the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Weird Logo Issue at L3P Quality Level 3 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I dunno... I'm still coming to grips with the whole BFC thing, so this subpart whatsit doesn't seem like too much extra typing! That reminds me--is BFC-compliance mandatory for new parts submissions, or is it simply a good idea? I confess that (...) (22 years ago, 9-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Weird Logo Issue at L3P Quality Level 3 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) :) It's not much extra typing, it's just one more thing to understand, or more guideline to follow... (...) It's simply a good idea. (...) There are two primary benefit: 1. It *can* boost rendering speed, if the viewer is coded to take (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Weird Logo Issue at L3P Quality Level 3 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) No, flattening everything wouldn't be a workable solution. We had some of that (quite awhile ago). It was scary. (...) Ah. Yeah, if the macros are only evaluated once, that wouldn't work either. I'm not sure how L3P performs the translation (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| | | | |
