Subject:
|
Re: Animation using Datsville
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:04:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2413 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but what it sounds like you are saying
> couldn't be further from the truth. I suspect it is due to your misinterpreting
> what I was trying to say. Given that it isn't exactly a trivial thing, that's
> not too surprising.
>
> When making models that might be included in a larger MPD, there's no reason
> that any attention should be paid to the location of elements in the individual
> models with respect to each other. Whoever places the sub models into the MPD
> needs to of course make sure they fit together nicely, but it doesn't matter how
> they are layed out in their own coordinate space.
>
> The problem that I was describing was that since LDBoxer doesn't know about MPD
> files, all the sub models are treated as if they are in the same coordinate
> space. So if multiple of them have walls at their own origin, LDBoxer will act
> like these are in the same place, even though in reality they are in completely
> different places.
>
> --Travis Cobbs
Oh. I thought you were talking about overlapping walls.
I also just remembered that I had used an earlier version of LDBoxer, that
replaced bricks regardless of position, to convert Datsville.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
| (...) I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but what it sounds like you are saying couldn't be further from the truth. I suspect it is due to your misinterpreting what I was trying to say. Given that it isn't exactly a trivial thing, that's not too (...) (21 years ago, 7-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
