Re: to be or not to be... - XCC ForumRegister | Login | Search
History | Home | Messages
to be or not to be...flyby07:05 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek17:35 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will17:52 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...Godwin18:23 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will18:29 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:07 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will19:10 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...flyby19:30 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...will19:32 19-11-2001
Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero20:44 19-11-2001

> > Most people will be happy with working TS style normals,
> > but personally i'm more inclined to tackle the RA2
> > problem. I see it more as a chalenge...

> > Maybe research can be split up ?

> or prioritised; TS normals done *PROPERLY* first, then RA2
> normals tackled?

WHY RA2 normals? why not just stick with TS?

Re: to be or not to be...flyby20:59 19-11-200112
    Re: to be or not to be...will21:26 19-11-2001
        Re: to be or not to be...flyby21:44 19-11-2001
            Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek22:43 19-11-2001
                Re: to be or not to be...flyby22:51 19-11-2001
                    Re: to be or not to be...will23:46 19-11-2001
                        Re: to be or not to be...flyby00:09 20-11-2001
                        Re: to be or not to be...ReaprZero07:07 20-11-2001
                            Re: to be or not to be...Godwin18:37 21-11-2001
                            Re: to be or not to be...Koen van de Sande04:11 22-11-2001
                        Re: to be or not to be...haydn00:33 24-11-2001
                    Re: to be or not to be...Olaf van der Spek19:00 20-11-2001

Home | Post | Users | Messages