| |
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> dear LSC members,
>
> LEGO Digital Designer http://www.lego.com/eng/create/digitaldesigner/ has only
> one feature I really miss in the LDraw system: the snap-in behavior. guys,
> I'd like to ask you - no I beg you down on my knees - to define a working
> standard for a connection database. there is currently a proposal at ldraw.org:
>
> http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=135&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
>
> but it is all theorical. to launch this thing we would just nead 2,3 working
> examples (bricks, plates) of these .cdl files
>
> http://www.ldraw.org/OLD/reference/specs/lcd/#Appendix%20B
>
> with the proper coordinations and a prog (LDDP plug-in or stand-alone) where we
> could test new definitions. a paralell PT could collect those .cdl files.
> I can also think of a restriction for submitting new parts. authors would have
> to submit a .cdl file first, before they are alowed to submit a .dat file. this
> would boost the build-up of the library. could you make this happen?
>
> w.
> humble part-author with no programming
> skills but seeking to submit his new
> parts along with a proper .cdl file
Hi Willy,
I think "working" needs a tool.
1. there is a tool
2. there is a developping database
There is no chicken-egg problem: the tool always precedes the database.
Would you model parts without MLCad, LeoCad or LDraw?
I doubt anybody would.
Then people would model POV parts because POV is a "working" tool.
A Wiki is always a great idea and helps to cumulate community knowledge.
But a "standard" always comes from a tool, never from a formal documentation.
Formal documentation comes only after a tool is established.
Sadly enough, building such a tool will take very long time because such tools
are generally built by a single person. As far as i know every LDraw compatible
tool is single-authored, while the LDraw database is multitude-authored. And i
bet it will remain so in the future. LCD-extended parts would considerably slow
down LDraw library progression (especially as no tool would exist to check the
specifications) and would help nothing. This additionnal workload would then be
wasted, because the first man who arrives with a working tool will actually
define the standard because only him knows what works and what is merely
christmas-wishes.
In my opinion, modelling and reviewing parts is currently the best way to
contribute. That's what you do and we all thank you for that. The day the savior
will come then you can do even better.
- damien
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
