(4 hours ago)Travis Cobbs Wrote: It could be me, but I think that you are overly optimistic about what this is going to look like at runtime. To me, it's just going to be a texture in a different format, but it seems like you think it is going to magically produce full vector-quality output at runtime. Maybe I'm missing something, and maybe Roland plans to implement it the way that you are expecting, but if so, I totally misunderstood the whole thread.
Mostly true, except for the magically part—LDView and other programs already produce beautiful vector-quality output from LDraw code, so my expectation was something similar, but with the added ability to project flat LDRaw geometry onto a different surface. (Again, this is something already possible with existing tools, just not at render time in an LDraw viewer.)
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to understand the mechanics of how this is done, but since it combines already-extant capabilities, just perhaps in a different order, it didn't occur to me to be technically insurmountable. Perhaps that's not the case, in which case that's just the sort of feedback I'm hoping for with this discussion.
It's also likely that different programs can accomplish this in different ways, and that the specification itself wouldn't dictate the method used. It may also be that TEXMAP isn't the right way get this kind of result.
I do agree that improving the current available results should be a motivating goal in making any change to the spec. We should be able to project LDraw-based patterns (insofar as they're seen as superior to PNG-based ones) onto curved or complex surfaces, without "wrinkling" the surface as is currently seen. I think the role of the spec is to open avenues for generating the best possible results; exactly how that's implemented, in my opinion, is left to the wizardry of those of you who actually create the tools.