Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jul 2010 01:55:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
33817 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Roland Melkert wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> <snip>
> > > I don't see why it would be a problem to keep
> > > the povray variant/improvements in separate (similar named) files (eg lgeo). So
> > > tools can merge the data when needed.
> >
> > You don't??? Are you serious? I can instantly think of four or five good reasons
> > why I (and obviously Dave!, too) prefer inline POV code before separate files
> > like LGEO. Please try again before I reveal the correct answers.
>
>
> I'm sorry I really don't,
I guess there we have the really big problem. We all have our own LDraw
universes, and we all use LDraw for so very different purposes, different tools
of choise, different approaches, different thinking, different ways to solve
problems, different needs, different requirements... And we seem very much
unable to recognize other LDraw users' ways of thinking and their needs.
> the 'if then' construction is pretty much the same
> only thing is the two versions are in the same file.
Yeah, that would be the hint. Same file. And from this (agreed, quite small)
advantage derive the great, great, great advantages of this approach. Namely:
* No extra libraries or folders (except the sub-folder LDraw\Parts\Overwrite
where I store backups of my preferred personal variants of part dats I restore
after a L-Cad Parts Update)
* No extra parameters to remember for L3P! It works without any hassle right
from the very moment the POV replacement dat is there in the LDraw\Parts folder
- as opposed to all existing, "recommended" alternatives.
* It's there today, ready to use and with no known bugs.
In other words: It's extremely user-friendly, compared to the alternatives
given.
I tried LGEO some times, even though it was very long ago.
* I couldn't get it to work. (Parameters, I guess. Maybe missing include files?)
* I think it's discontinued = no more parts updates.
* It looks like quality overkill to me. I'm not after photorealistic images, but
I don't want facetted surfaces of minifig faces. Photorealism takes way too much
CPU power for my huge models.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ldrawpov/
* Seems even more incomplete than LGEO. Nothing happened there in 3 years.
* Requires include files, seems awfully complicated to set it up to work.
And, once again: Inline POV code is already there and ready to enjoy. No known
bugs, no complicated setup or extra parameters. And I'm not after allowing
Inline POV code in official part dats, like I said I accepted the ban, but I
sure hope the support for it will continue. It looks as though some people are
interested i my POV replacement dats after all, judging from the number of times
hey have been viewed http://news.lugnet.com/cad/ray/?n=2930
> So perhaps you are hinting on maintainability or mixed single files (because
> even subfiles would work ok using a mirror tree, aslong they use the same scale
> and orientation (or are supplied with a transformation key).
Sorry, you lost me completely there. I don't even know what a mirror tree is.
> But then again I'm not a part modeler, so you actually made me somewhat curious
> about the 'correct answers' :)
Nowadays, I'm not very much of a part author, either. I started this thread
solely as an L3P user getting worrying warning messages.
> Roland
/Tore
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) This hits on the main issue, as far as I'm concerned. There are certain elements that simply can't be rendered well within the constraints of the official, accepted LDraw code language. My interest, of course, is in clone elements. I grant (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
| | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| --snip-- (...) LGEO was updated fairly recently (in the last two years anyway) so it's definitely being updated sometimes. The newer LDView releases also make POVray export very easy and you can add parts you've made yourself simply by editing a (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I think I've got a solution for you and Dave. Stop worrying about the messages. ;) No, really. The current version of L3P still does what you want, right? And I think we can safely predict that the next non-beta version of L3P is highly (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote: <snip> (...) alternatives. In that case I think Don is right, just ignore the warnings and keep doing what you like. I doubt Lars will stop supporting his own LDraw meta extensions altogether. (...) The thing (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote: <snip> (...) I'm sorry I really don't, the 'if then' construction is pretty much the same only thing is the two versions are in the same file. So perhaps you are hinting on maintainability or mixed single (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
