Subject:
|
Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:40:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1859 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> I'm not sure how this fits with what you are envisioning. Could you be a
> little less terse?
Yes.
What I'm envisioning is two meta-commands (or sets of meta-commands) that would be
used to model flexible parts.
One meta-command would go in part files, and would define how a specific flexible
part behaves -- is it fixed length/variable length? Does it resist bending or not?
What line is the basis for bezier curves? Which sections are flexible, and which
aren't? Etc., etc.
The second meta-command would be used in model files, and would be specify how each
flexible part is actually positioned.
The thing is, part flexibility is outside of my expertise - I don't know what
parameters are needed, and where they are needed. Do we need metastatements in
pulleys, to say that they can act as pulleys (along with their diameters)?
Maybe we need to start by cataloging the current state of the art - what are all the
flexible pieces, what are their behaviors, and what do modelers need to be able to do
with them?
It would be really awesome if, the next time LEGO dreams up a new type of flexible
element, we could already have the language to describe the behavior of the new parts
in LDraw.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source?
|
| (...) Hi Steve, I'm still trying to understand this terse response. Right now, LSynth uses meta commands and part usages to define constraints for the synthesis process. LSynth performs in-line synthesis. That is to say, it does not spit out the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
