LDraw.org Discussion Forums
TEXMAP extension thoughts and findings. - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: TEXMAP extension thoughts and findings. (/thread-13633.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


RE: TEXMAP extension thoughts and findings. - Roland Melkert - 2018-01-15

(2018-01-15, 20:10)Michael Horvath Wrote: Does MLCad support texmaps? I'm guessing not.

No, as far I know MLCad is not actively maintained anymore. Adding texture mapping to it would probably be a big job as it uses software only rendering.


RE: TEXMAP extension thoughts and findings. - Roland Melkert - 2018-01-15

(2018-01-14, 22:51)Joshua Delahunty Wrote: I would argue the top would be for *intuitiveness* (rather than uniformity), since the triangle formed by CYLINDRICAL is orthogonal to the triangle defined for PLANAR (and my original reasoning was, put P3 at the base so that the part designer could try to remember that the triangle for PLANAR was wider at top than at bottom, and the plane of the triangle faces the viewer, whereas the CYLINDRICAL had the wider part at the bottom, and was "viewed" edge-on (also in PLANAR P3 defines an endpoint, while in CYLINDRICAL it defines a midpoint).  I was specifically thinking that making them as different as possible in all ways was better than having things in common.

I'm not arguing it should not change (as intuitiveness is obviously subjective), I am saying that I don't personally feel that P3 at "top" is uniform with how PLANAR is defined.  I'd be happy with P3 in either location, and if more people (so far, 2 to my 1) felt it makes more sense in the top position, that's far more important than my initial intention (putting it at the bottom).

Actually I'm thinking to support both as p3 is really only needed to determine the base direction (or facing direction).

You can calculate that direction using p3 at any place by using it to find the perpendicular vector to the p1 p2 direction.


RE: TEXMAP extension thoughts and findings. - Joshua Delahunty - 2018-01-16

(2018-01-15, 20:41)Roland Melkert Wrote:
(2018-01-15, 20:10)Michael Horvath Wrote: Does MLCad support texmaps? I'm guessing not.

No, as far I know MLCad is not actively maintained anymore. Adding texture mapping to it would probably be a big job as it uses software only rendering.

The fact that MLCad does not (and likely will not) support texture mapping is specifically why the FALLBACK syntax was developed and built for TEXMAP, so that existing tools would continue to work as they have with parts (and decorations of both types could be provided for use by MLCad users).  It complicated the syntax and support a great deal, but backwards compatibility was very important to us as we designed TEXMAP.


RE: TEXMAP extension thoughts and findings. - Roland Melkert - 2018-01-17

(2018-01-15, 20:45)Roland Melkert Wrote: Actually I'm thinking to support both as p3 is really only needed to determine the base direction (or facing direction).

You can calculate that direction using p3 at any place by using it to find the perpendicular vector to the p1 p2 direction.

I've implemented this and it works fine, so the whole p3 point location is basically up to the part author imho.

[attachment=3027]

at the bottom (left in img)
Code:
0 !TEXMAP START CYLINDRICAL 0 4 0  0 17 0   0 17 -13  90 smile.png
1 16  0 0 0  1 0 0  0 1 0  0 0 1 3062a.dat
0 !TEXMAP END

at some random place (center in img)
Code:
0 !TEXMAP START CYLINDRICAL 0 4 0  0 17 0   0 12 -13  90 smile.png
1 16  0 0 0  1 0 0  0 1 0  0 0 1 3062a.dat
0 !TEXMAP END

at the top (right in img)
Code:
0 !TEXMAP START CYLINDRICAL 0 4 0  0 17 0   0 4 -13  90 smile.png
1 16  0 0 0  1 0 0  0 1 0  0 0 1 3062a.dat
0 !TEXMAP END