 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.01.2016 um 14:10 schrieb Stephen:
> On 1/30/2016 12:44 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> Ten years later. Any progress? Any news? :-D
>>
>
> News of what, Sven?
>
> None of your recent posts have quoted who or what you are replying to.
> As you say it was 10 years ago and if you are using a newsreader, like
> me. Your posts appear as orphaned posts.
That certainly depends on your newsreader settings.
But I do agree that re-opening discussions from 10 years ago isn't
really a too promising idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2016 3:15 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 30.01.2016 um 14:10 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 1/30/2016 12:44 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>>> Ten years later. Any progress? Any news? :-D
>>>
>>
>> News of what, Sven?
>>
>> None of your recent posts have quoted who or what you are replying to.
>> As you say it was 10 years ago and if you are using a newsreader, like
>> me. Your posts appear as orphaned posts.
>
> That certainly depends on your newsreader settings.
>
Yes, true. I probably stopped Thunderbird from downloading all the posts
in p.b.i. as they only go back to 2010. Whereas in p.b.sceen-files the
earliest is 1997.
> But I do agree that re-opening discussions from 10 years ago isn't
> really a too promising idea.
>
Especially when you think of the age of some of the posters. <Gulp!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(smiling)
Yes, of course you all are right. My newsreader (Thunderbird) also never
showed these very old posts. But just by very lucky accident, I found
these threads with the Google search engine. I didn't like to open them
with my web browser, as I prefer their display in Thunderbird.
That is the reason, why I "marked" those ancient threads with some sort
of comment. Less for restarting any discussion, but more for the reason
to bring them up again inside my Thunderbird newsreader.
I am trying to find the source code, Zeger Knaepen had published within
one of his comments within these threads, as I need now that macro.
Easier to find (hopefully) in the better sorted view Thunderbird gives me.
With other words: unless you have that macro, there is no reason to
continue those old discussions (I agree fully). Unless, greebles
motivate the one or other of you, then a new discussion would make sense.
Since I have them back in my newsreader now, I am searching them now for
that macro. My apologies for bringing these old (but for me highly
interesting) discussion back. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/30/2016 6:50 PM, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> (smiling)
> Yes, of course you all are right. My newsreader (Thunderbird) also never
> showed these very old posts. But just by very lucky accident, I found
> these threads with the Google search engine. I didn't like to open them
> with my web browser, as I prefer their display in Thunderbird.
>
> That is the reason, why I "marked" those ancient threads with some sort
> of comment. Less for restarting any discussion, but more for the reason
> to bring them up again inside my Thunderbird newsreader.
>
> I am trying to find the source code, Zeger Knaepen had published within
> one of his comments within these threads, as I need now that macro.
> Easier to find (hopefully) in the better sorted view Thunderbird gives me.
>
> With other words: unless you have that macro, there is no reason to
> continue those old discussions (I agree fully). Unless, greebles
> motivate the one or other of you, then a new discussion would make sense.
>
> Since I have them back in my newsreader now, I am searching them now for
> that macro. My apologies for bringing these old (but for me highly
> interesting) discussion back. :-)
>
Responding to an old post does not magically make the old post appear in
Thunderbird unless you also include the quoted text.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-1-2016 0:50, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> I am trying to find the source code, Zeger Knaepen had published within
> one of his comments within these threads, as I need now that macro.
> Easier to find (hopefully) in the better sorted view Thunderbird gives me.
>
Well, as I tend to keep (almost) everything, here is the greebles macro
you mention.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'greebles.inc.txt' (51 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Biiig thanks! Got it, Thomas!
Is it that version that can do boxes and cylinders, or is it the
previous version that does only boxes? Any idea?
---------------
Mike: yes, posting some little text did the trick for me in the
Thunderbird newsreader: I saw this thread, and it was right on top.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/01/2016 20:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Biiig thanks! Got it, Thomas!
>
> Is it that version that can do boxes and cylinders, or is it the
> previous version that does only boxes? Any idea?
As far as I can tell, that's the version that does prisms.
There should be a parametric patch version somewhere
Ok, the attached zip-file may or may not contain all needed files, but
the code is not pretty..
at all.. :)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'parametric.zip' (9 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey, welcome back, Zeger!
As you can see, your stuff is that good, that even after a decade it is
wanted!
Question:
What kind of metallic texture did you use for your two sample objects? I
really liked that texture.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here a link to some areas of the spaceship v2:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.729262957088962.1073741832.100000157941289&type=3
(not at the begin or end of that photo album, more in the middle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-2-2016 1:33, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
> On 31/01/2016 20:39, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>> Biiig thanks! Got it, Thomas!
>>
>> Is it that version that can do boxes and cylinders, or is it the
>> previous version that does only boxes? Any idea?
>
> As far as I can tell, that's the version that does prisms.
> There should be a parametric patch version somewhere
Yes, if I remember correctly, I used this for prisms and for spheres at
the time. I do not remember any parametric patch however.
>
> Ok, the attached zip-file may or may not contain all needed files, but
> the code is not pretty..
> at all.. :)
I shall add it to the collection ;-) Thanks!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
