 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Bad simile, but ok then: I want pizza-pie and I respect those who want pizza XOR pie. Then let all three alternatives be available on the market. No Government Control over personal taste. I model in LDraw and render the final result in (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- By that argument you dismiss the opposite perspective. You call 'facile' on any argument, no matter how strong, that disagrees with your own position. I have a very clear argument for my position: POVray is not LDraw and to (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Upload to where? If it's to a commonly-accessible LDraw-friendly site, then how do we avoid having to sift through 500 different versions of 3001.dat? And if it's to an individual's own personal site, then that's equivalent to hiding the file (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I don't know. All I know is that I export a POV file and it works well. That's pretty much how I like my software to work. (...) They could upload the files they've made. In fact, I have done so before. (...) It's more like offering people the (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Question my sanity if you must, but I'll have you know that I haven't used a 386 since 2008. I hadn't thought about the likelihood of a non-beta version being released, but as long as it supports the old syntax, then I don't care what kind of (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) LDView already has the ability to do this automatic replacement during POV export: Create a POV directory inside your LDraw directory Put p an parts directories in the POV directory Drop in POV files with the same filenames as the original (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Thanks, but no, I don't get irritated so no need for yet another parameter to silence certain warnings. I was just a little worried. And if a future version of L3P will no longer support inline code, I'll probably stick to 1.4 Beta - if not (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) See also my reply on Tore Eriksson message. It would be called 3001.pov and has the same information in it as the 'else' portion of the current dat files (although without the leading 0's, it would (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) But does such an export include the POV-enhanced parts in proper matrix alignment, or does the user have to figure out how to orient the part to match the output file? If the latter, then it's equivalent to not supporting the POV-Ray elements (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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, (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm not conversant with LGEO or the like; what would the filename format be for these alternate parts? That is, if a 2x4 brick is 3001.dat, what's the equivalent name of the LGEO version? I ask because I like sticking with the DAT suffix, and (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) The decision not to include POV code in LDraw part files was made by the LSC - see (URL) for the rationale. Chris (14 years ago, 30-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the decision to disallow inline POV code in official parts was made prior to the creation of the LSC. On a side note, LDView's POV export functionality supports L3P's inline POV syntax. --Travis (14 years ago, 30-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) After some tough discussion some years ago, I now agree on that (although so far, I've seen nothing that comes remotely close to L3P+POV-Ray. And I doubt there will be in a foreseeable future). (...) You don't??? Are you serious? I can (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) As far I understand it, the main reason the LSC don't want POV code in the parts themselves is because of the 'pollution'. Because another person might want blender code or maybe even something (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
