Subject:
|
LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:02:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1420 times
|
| |
|
|
So far, LDBoxer has replaced all bricks and plates that has both top studs and
bottom studs/tubes covered by non-transparent parts.
Next step is to eliminiate drawing bottom studs/tubes when only top studs are
visible, and vice versa. Many models are built on plates instead of baseplates,
so I think we can save thousands of stud3's and stud4's from being parsed in
vain in Datsville if we add this option. I'm not sure if the gain with
top-stud-less version will be that high.
Next revision of "my" Datsville version will require the /B folder. I have
decided to replace all safe parts + many roof slopes the will look bad when
viewed from inside the buildings. If anyone wishes to shoot a picture from
inside a house, looking up to the roof, it will require re-doing that building
by restoring all \B references to original path. Sorry for that inconvenience,
but I have calculated the gain higher than the loss.
Next-next revision, I hope to have at least excessive bottom studs/tubes
removed.
For a while, I tried to keep the boxed version and a non-simplified version side
by side, but it's too complicated. And it's a lot easier for anyone to un-box
than for me to keep parallell versions updated.
While "boxing" all Datsville's buildings - this is a very time-consuming job,
even with the automatic and semiautomatic tools! - I want your input on the idea
of the planned two new simplification levels.
Let's say we call it A when top studs are removed and B when bottom studs/tubes
are removed (think: Above and Below)
Should we have the structure:
Parts\B
Parts\B\A
Parts\B\B
or
Parts\B
Parts\BA
Parts\BB
or anything better?
I think the first alternative is a little better. Or does anyone have a yet
better idea?
I really appreciate your input.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote: [Lot of snippage] (...) hi tore, with the release of MLCad 3.10 there are now at least two progs who support custom folders. instead of messing up my PARTS\ and P\ folder I wish I could define something like (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
