Subject:
|
Re: Will LMPL be Simulation-approach or Usage-approach ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.lcd
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:27:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2651 times
|
| |
|
|
DG> Do not forget to download Spiderbot.dat (in lugnet.cad.models)
It came automatically via e-mail. :)
DG> We embody two different well-known approaches.
Both of LCD and LMPL embody these two approaches.
DG> First : the Simulation approach.
DG> And the ultimate video game would be a game that is ray-traced in real time.
I hope we will reach some day that state...
(Now I have a scene. And when I start to render it, the Windows
generates about 700MB of swap file /I have 448MB RAM/... and it takes
a few minutes... and this is only one steady scene... :(
DG> (here I refer "" which sounds stupid to me: do you mean fun would be greater
DG> if lego bricks were mold at atomic precision? I don't think so.)
Why not? :) (If lego bricks in the above means LDraw parts on the
screen or printed)
DG> I do not say LCD+LMPL will fail. Because I know nothing about them.
DG> I still wait publishing.
:) I still work on it (formatting and illustrating).
You can know many and the most important things about LCD. We think it
to be the starting point, and that's why we need it first.
DG> However, I am sure about one thing: lego bricks are what you do with them.
DG> So I prefer to adhere the use-case approach.
DG> Because the existence precedes the essence.
Have you read the spirit of LCD project?
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=6823
DG> Consider the Spiderbot model.
DG> I guess the Spiderbot leg part "Plate 1 x 4 Offset" is not in LCD as a
DG> rotating connector.
Now we are at the beginning, so we have only a few precollected
connector _types_.
But I think "Plate 1 x 4 Offset" may as well have a rotating type connector
on it (and a sliding one at a time!). If not, this movement(s) can be
handled by LMPL level. :)
(The part is a part and a connector is a connector. A part is not
a connector, but a part can have connector(s!) on it.)
DG> In the real world the legs hardly articulate without model disassembly.
DG> But I must imagine they do. If they don't how my model would walk?
DG> So I decide they do. And I declare "" as a rotating connector. The reality
DG> is not what it is, it is just what I imagine (I realize while typing: that
DG> is lego slogan!!!).
Now your Spiderbot model will scuff if the Antenna not sliding up and
down. :) You must handle this type of movement too!
DG> Because I play lego. Because lego is a toy.
I say LEGO is not a toy. LEGO is THE toy! :)
DG> And, believe me, I am really tempted by abandon. Because this is too much work.
Yes, I agree with you. The LEGO itself is very-very complex. Now we
have "only" the geometry with LDraw and it's already fantastic. If we want
more (connections, movements, playability, etc.) we need to work on it
hard.
DG> I have to choose between ALM and a new, more robust, Termolo compiler.
DG> Currently I only have a very crude Termolo interpreter, written by myself.
DG> And I really need a compiler for advanced, computer intensive usage.
May I ask you to say me something about your Termolo
interpreter/compiler too? (I think it's going to be offtopic, so I ask
you to do it via private e-mail.)
Play well!
--
___ Bye: KACS, The BrickaMocka
/___\__
|o o| E-mail: kacs69@freemail.hu
_\_~_/_ kacs@makacs.hu
/|LEGO |\ lcd@makacs.hu
//|_____|\\
C |==|==| C Brick, Brick Hurray! :)
|__|__|
__I__I__I_________________< The Bat! 1.53d >_
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Will LMPL be Simulation-approach or Usage-approach ?
|
| Hi Láng Attila D. Hi Kiss Attila Csongor, Do not forget to download Spiderbot.dat (in lugnet.cad.models) The debate becomes VERY interesting. We embody two different well-known approaches. First : the Simulation approach. Things are nothing but (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
