LDraw.org Discussion Forums
Extension for material properties? - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: General (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-12.html)
+--- Forum: Official File Specifications/Standards (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-32.html)
+--- Thread: Extension for material properties? (/thread-24221.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


RE: Extension for material properties? - Philippe Hurbain - 2020-10-04

(2020-10-04, 8:07)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: How many of these properties could be placed in ldconfig?
IMO we are missing colour codes and properties on textile materials.
IMHO linking material (eg. rubber) to color was a kludge and it would be better to find another way...


RE: Extension for material properties? - Orion Pobursky - 2020-10-04

(2020-10-04, 7:00)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: Speaking of materials, we still don't have satisfying way to use texmap patterns containing metallic inks...

Well actually we do: Gloss Map. But I don't know if any of the editors support it.


RE: Extension for material properties? - N. W. Perry - 2020-10-04

(2020-10-04, 8:23)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: IMHO linking material (eg. rubber) to color was a kludge and it would be better to find another way...

Is there anything saying LDconfig is only for colors? Or could it contain one section for colors, and another for materials/finishes?


RE: Extension for material properties? - Philippe Hurbain - 2020-10-04

(2020-10-04, 14:09)N. W. Perry Wrote: Is there anything saying LDconfig is only for colors? Or could it contain one section for colors, and another for materials/finishes?
Problem is not so much defining material than to use it. Basic LDraw syntax has a color property, but no material one...


RE: Extension for material properties? - N. W. Perry - 2020-10-04

(2020-10-04, 14:27)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: Problem is not so much defining material than to use it. Basic LDraw syntax has a color property, but no material one...

I guess materials would be called by the syntax of the !MATERIAL (or !TEXTURE) meta.

Or maybe they could be called by the existing color property, using some kind of prefix system. E.g., color code 16 would be main color with no material specified, but 1600101 could be main color with a rubber finish, 1600201 would be main color in a slope texture, etc.  (Or use letters for material codes, or a character separator.)


RE: Extension for material properties? - Roland Melkert - 2020-10-05

(2020-10-04, 21:52)N. W. Perry Wrote: Or maybe they could be called by the existing color property, using some kind of prefix system. E.g., color code 16 would be main color with no material specified, but 1600101 could be main color with a rubber finish, 1600201 would be main color in a slope texture, etc.  (Or use letters for material codes, or a character separator.)

I like this idea.

We could reuse one of the 'useless' color ranges (like the invisible ones).


RE: Extension for material properties? - Lasse Deleuran - 2020-10-05

(2020-10-05, 18:02)Roland Melkert Wrote: I like this idea.

We could reuse one of the 'useless' color ranges (like the invisible ones).

I like this since it allows legacy software to be able to use a new ldconfig.ldr and default to still show colors correctly.

You and me might like this because it is neat because we see masks with the possibility of describing surfaces. However. I fear that we might make it too difficult for less technically inclined users.

For this reason I also want us to consider META statements, such as something like this impacting the next line:

0 !SURFACE [ROUGHNESS=0.8] [OTHER_FEATURE=VALUE] ...
1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 subfile.dat


RE: Extension for material properties? - N. W. Perry - 2020-10-07

(2020-10-05, 22:00)Lasse Deleuran Wrote: I like this since it allows legacy software to be able to use a new ldconfig.ldr and default to still show colors correctly.

You and me might like this because it is neat because we see masks with the possibility of describing surfaces. However. I fear that we might make it too difficult for less technically inclined users.

For this reason I also want us to consider META statements, such as something like this impacting the next line:

0 !SURFACE [ROUGHNESS=0.8] [OTHER_FEATURE=VALUE] ...
1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 subfile.dat

My sense is that the technical difficulty of using a meta command vs. editing the config to include a new color/finish/material is approximately equal. So whatever solution gets the job done while meeting all the needs of an LDraw specification is probably best.

(And of course, the ldconfig is really just a bunch of meta commands anyway…)


RE: Extension for material properties? - Travis Cobbs - 2020-10-08

(2020-10-05, 18:02)Roland Melkert Wrote: I like this idea.

We could reuse one of the 'useless' color ranges (like the invisible ones).

One problem with this is that the material is then tied to a specific color. So, you then need to have a separate entry for every combination of color and non-standard material.


RE: Extension for material properties? - N. W. Perry - 2020-10-08

(2020-10-08, 0:45)Travis Cobbs Wrote: One problem with this is that the material is then tied to a specific color. So, you then need to have a separate entry for every combination of color and non-standard material.

It should work the opposite way. If "1600101" refers to main color with a rubber finish, all you'd need to do is create the entry for rubber finish under 00101. The prefix would always be an existing color code, so the only entries you'd need to create are the materials.