ldconfig.ldr has the following (well, the one that I adjusted to use TLG
colorings does):
0 !COLOUR Black CODE 0 VALUE #1b2a34 EDGE 8
0 !COLOUR Rubber_Black CODE 256 VALUE #212121 EDGE #000000 RUBBER
does that help?
They've implemented quite a few keywords that should help:
ALPHA x
PEARLESCENT
CHROME
METAL
LUMINANCE x (for phosphorescent white)
I think they've covered a lot of what you're looking for, other than the
random-scatter texture of roof-tile sloping faces. That's really a bump
map issue over a coloring issue, though, IMHO.
ldconfig.ldr is pretty powerful; it gives the user complete control over
the color values, without you having to adjust LeoCAD again. The
support that LDView has is really nice.
Since there are keywords (RUBBER, CHROME, METAL) to mark the material
type, it would be fairly simple to have the palette reorganize when
trying to color a piece of that type (click on a crown, only Cool Silver
Lacquered and Warm Gold Drum-Lacquered show up, for instance; click on
a metallic ("PEARLESCENT") item, and only the PEARLESCENT colors show)
-- all optional of course.
Once/if I can get the thing building in 6.0; I could drop back from the
HEAD and check out things pre-your-latest-changes, if that would help.
-- joshua
> I'm pretty sure the head revision isn't good enough for use right
> now. I started adding support for submodels and I think I broke the
> save/load code.
>
> I really do want to have better color support but I'd rather have
> the concept of materials instead. Colors aren't enough to handle all
> the information that you need, you can have for example black colors
> for: standard black brick, the rugged side of a 2x2 slope brick,
> black tires, black hoses, etc..
>
> But I don't want to make it too complicated for the users that
> just want to add a black brick or black tire, so I want LeoCAD to be
> smart about that and automatically add the right type so probably the
> pieces should contain the material information and the user picks the
> tint for the piece when they add it to the model.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 4:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> If Philo can't test*, or Leo doesn't want it generally released in
>> the current state, then I'll make sure to you send you a "private
>> build" John.
>>
>> -- joshua
>>
>> * I'll do what I can to be sure of the current functionality; but I
>> think Philo knows the operation of LeoCAD better than anyone, and I
>> wouldn't want a "bad" release out there for general consumption...
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: leocad <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:43:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: Any newer version?
>>
>> It would be great if a downloadable release can be made available.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> If needed, I can build a
>> downloadable release; if that's desired. [Philo, are you willing
>> to ascertain
>> whether there are any bugs that make it unshippable before I do;
>> once I figure
>> out the 6.0 issue for you?]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leocad mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://list.gerf.org/listinfo/leocad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leocad mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://list.gerf.org/listinfo/leocad
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leocad mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://list.gerf.org/listinfo/leocad
>
_______________________________________________
Leocad mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.gerf.org/listinfo/leocad
