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
Re: to be or not to be...flyby20:59 19-11-2001
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

> > so we are generally agreed? TS tackled and working first,
> > then RA2 normals?
> > good. time to get on with actually decoding them then

> Seems I have a few minutes to "waste" this afternoon, so I allready started...:D

> I've checked several original TS voxels and they only have voxel indexes from 0 to 35, 36 indexes in total.

Make that 37. -1 is used sometimes.


> 36x36x36 will be a lot easier to study then 256x256x256, don't you agree? ;)

> starting to make a test cube right a way...

Re: to be or not to be...flyby22:51 19-11-20018
    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