oh god, we're still talking about this? I thought we established months ago that we could use TS normals instead. Why are we still bothering with RA2 normals?
there, useful post for the day

> > > What we did was take a copy of the APC from TS and
> > > change the normals flag to '4' (it is the last byte of
> > > the file, making it easy to find in a hex editor).

> > yea, i think that's it, i made the BMP-1 from a rhino
> > whcih uses the TS normals, whereas the cube was i think
> > the apoc or something which i cleared and made it

> with a hex editor (this method only works if the voxel has
> only ONE section!).

> there might be a way to edit this header in Koen's voxel
> section editor? Or with XCC?

> > btw, is the 2 or 4 changable?
> > it'll be helpful for using the TS perfect normals on a
> > previously RA2 normalised vxl

> Exactly the point- there is nothing particularly wrong
> with TS normals- they are more than detailed enough for
> most uses. We don't need to understand RA2 normals,
> because TS ones will suffice?