"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> > On 21-10-2012 10:08, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> > > all things considered, it's not a bad start, but I don't know if it will ever be
> > > terribly practical, which is unfortunate.
> > >
> >
> > Like Jaime, I think this is an excellent method, worth the inconveniences.
> >
> Thanks.  I appreciate the complement.
>
> > Now a little nitpicking ;-)  How about the /sides/ of the cross boards?
> > They do not seem to receive paint, which they should, maybe as streaks...
> >
> > Thomas
>
> The sides of the boards do receive paint but, because the boards are iso's
> rather than boxes, the sides are partially occluded.  One could remedy this by
> altering the target path slightly in strategic places.  It may be automated, but
> it doesn't remove the artistic element in the slightest.
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.

Ok, so this should help ease the pain of long parsing times. I added the ability
to save the result in an include file (last parameter is a filename, no
extension)

To say that this drastically cuts parse times for subsequent renders using the
include file would be an understatement.

I also modified the macro call so that, if you don't want to use a stencil, all
you have to do is give it a solid black pigment (pigment { rgb 0 } works just
fine).  this obviates the need for the Template_Type parameter, which has been
removed.

I'll upload the new version to p.b.u.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message