| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> Hey! While we're extending the language, can we also allow MPD in part
> files?
>
> Steve
Considering the conservative spirit that rules this community, where it is
preferred to have no-progress over breaking backwards compatibility an where
standards set in LDraw 0.27 should be possibly kept for eternity, such ideas
have to be flagged as quantum leap.
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > Hey! While we're extending the language, can we also allow MPD in part
> > files?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Considering the conservative spirit that rules this community, where it is
> preferred to have no-progress over breaking backwards compatibility an where
> standards set in LDraw 0.27 should be possibly kept for eternity, such ideas
> have to be flagged as quantum leap.
I know. It's heresy!
But if there are enough good reasons to make that leap, it might be worth it.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > Hey! While we're extending the language, can we also allow MPD in part
> > > files?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Considering the conservative spirit that rules this community, where it is
> > preferred to have no-progress over breaking backwards compatibility an where
> > standards set in LDraw 0.27 should be possibly kept for eternity, such ideas
> > have to be flagged as quantum leap.
>
> I know. It's heresy!
>
> But if there are enough good reasons to make that leap, it might be worth it.
>
> Steve
I don't know why you need this, but I just did a test with LDView and it works.
You can call an mpd file from within a part and the first model in the mpd file
is shown together with the other content of the part file.
cu
mikeheide
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > Hey! While we're extending the language, can we also allow MPD in part
> > > files?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Considering the conservative spirit that rules this community, where it is
> > preferred to have no-progress over breaking backwards compatibility an where
> > standards set in LDraw 0.27 should be possibly kept for eternity, such ideas
> > have to be flagged as quantum leap.
>
> I know. It's heresy!
>
> But if there are enough good reasons to make that leap, it might be worth it.
>
> Steve
HURRAY! And in one go we are also gonna drop dithered colors in favour of RGBs.
We'll have textures, the LSC is finally shaping the LCD - LDraw Connection
Database http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=11226 and yourself are going to help
getting LDView working as PT rendering engine
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=16608
Keep your password for the mysql database at hand!
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> HURRAY! And in one go we are also gonna drop dithered colors in favour of RGBs.
Err, what? No, don't mix color codes and RGBs in official parts! This isn't an
issue of backwards compatibility. It's an issue of adding complexity where it
isn't needed (IMO, of course).
> Keep your password for the mysql database at hand!
Ha! I'd have to get it back from Chris...
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> Err, what? No, don't mix color codes and RGBs in official parts! This isn't an
> issue of backwards compatibility. It's an issue of adding complexity where it
> isn't needed (IMO, of course).
I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a
conservative community - at least some of us.
> > Keep your password for the mysql database at hand!
>
> Ha! I'd have to get it back from Chris...
No password, not a single CA-header edit on your agenda nor a library update
since ... was it 2004 or 2005? Steve, please help me out, what is that "LDraw
Parts Tracker Admin" title our still carrying for?
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
>
> I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a
> conservative community - at least some of us.
Your passive-aggressive whining wears thin, Willy.
Your chief target laughs it off, but you keep at it.
What little sense of community there might be is not helped by this behavior or
attitude. This approach says a lot more about you (and probably me, for being
the one to point this out) than anyone else.
-- joshuaD
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> Your passive-aggressive whining wears thin, Willy.
>
> Your chief target laughs it off, but you keep at it.
Joshua,
got a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > Err, what? No, don't mix color codes and RGBs in official parts! This isn't an
> > issue of backwards compatibility. It's an issue of adding complexity where it
> > isn't needed (IMO, of course).
>
> I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a
> conservative community - at least some of us.
Not sure where you're going with that. I think adding RGB colors to official
parts would not be a net improvement to the parts library system. It has
nothing to do with backwards compatibility or conservatism.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> Not sure where you're going with that. I think adding RGB colors to official
> parts would not be a net improvement to the parts library system. It has
> nothing to do with backwards compatibility or conservatism.
Steve,
our opposing positions on RGBs are known. What I seek in this very moment is
your position on the second question in this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=6493
"No password, not a single CA-header edit on your agenda nor a library update
since ... was it 2004 or 2005? Steve, please help me out, what is that "LDraw
Parts Tracker Admin" title our still carrying for?"
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > Err, what? No, don't mix color codes and RGBs in official parts! This isn't an
> > > issue of backwards compatibility. It's an issue of adding complexity where it
> > > isn't needed (IMO, of course).
> >
> > I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a
> > conservative community - at least some of us.
>
> Not sure where you're going with that. I think adding RGB colors to official
> parts would not be a net improvement to the parts library system. It has
> nothing to do with backwards compatibility or conservatism.
DOH! I forgot to include --
Part of the reason I think RGB colors are not the way to go is because they
don't solve the real problem -- there are a good number of patterns that can't
realistically be modeled in LDraw. Anything with gradients, for example. It
doesn't matter how much resolution your color palette has, gradients are about
pixels. Which leads to texture mapping -- a better solution, and actually
*more* radical. Texture mapping would allow more colors, more resolution, and
less work for authors.
And I'm not against RGB colors entirely, I think they are a great feature in
general. Just not in the official parts library.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote:
> >
> > I apologize for dreaming out loud. For a sec I've forgotten that we are a
> > conservative community - at least some of us.
>
> Your passive-aggressive whining wears thin, Willy.
>
> Your chief target laughs it off, but you keep at it.
>
> What little sense of community there might be is not helped by this behavior or
> attitude. This approach says a lot more about you (and probably me, for being
> the one to point this out) than anyone else.
>
> -- joshuaD
Time for a cadfight! :)
/Tore
|
|
|
