 | | Re: MLcad Technic fig
|
|
(...) Hi Jeff, Sounds like you got the dimensions correct. Still, I can't wait until someone does a real technic fig part in ldraw. (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I will be producing a modified version ASAP that incorporates the various suggestions in this thread. However, it won't be nearly as easy to read as his version is at the moment, since it will have version numbers at the beginning of each (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes, he sent it to me last week. Is there going to be a newer version I should wait for? -Tim (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed with cond. lines
|
|
(...) I'm not sure the part authors will be able to help you, but my knowledge of LDView probably will. After looking at it in LDView (without actually trying to read your DAT code), I believe the problem is that you have a T-intersection, and the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I'm betting Orion sent it to you, since I certainly didn't, and he sent me the same file. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Certified does sound better in that context, and I think certification could be a good thing. We should figure out how best to frame it, but I think it would add to the strength and usefulness of LDraw.org as a central resource for all of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Exactly. -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I started creating a page for LDraw.org out of Travis' text file of the BFC spec. Should I wait, since you're adding numbers? The one Travis sent me didn't have numbers in them. -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Help needed with cond. lines [DAT]
|
|
Could some of the senior-authors please have a look at the cond. lines? I'm in trouble with the section around the visor holes. I tried to add some cond. lines but LDView still doesn't show it with a smooth surface. I have no idea what's wrong. Many (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Primitive Class
|
|
(...) I checked some geometry websites, and the consensus is that these are tori. Just not the common type. (...) Inverse-ratio torus is a better name, but is fairly lengthy. An inverted torus, I think, is still a torus, just with the surfaces (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Parts Update 2003-01 Now Available
|
|
(...) Sorry for the delay, but the 2003-01 parts preview is now online. You can view the new parts at (URL). Steve (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: New Primitive Class
|
|
(...) When Steve and I were working on the format for the torii, I believe we said we would deal with this issue when it arose. Now it has. (...) The spreadsheet I made to create p/16 and p/48 torii also included support for this occurance. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Primitive Class
|
|
(...) I'm not terribly surprised. This is a great solution, as then, if for some reason in the future, inverse ratio tori are needed, they can use the same convention, just a different starting letter and inverting the ratio as appropriate in the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Primitive Class
|
|
(...) You might be surprised at how close t04o9999.dat would come. I can't see that it's any worse than the current t04o3333.dat file. Actually, I think I'm going to modify LDView to recognize nnnn in the minor fraction (where n is 0-9) to be (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I searched through all my LDraw email archives, with key messages going back to 1999(!), and couldn't find it. So, I emailed Jacob for instructions and will get this done in the next day or so, when he gets that to me. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Don't forget, as per this post ((URL) I'm resetting all the numbers in the current document to 1 prior to making my new changes. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree. I don't think a program can be "compatible" with an organization. It can be "certified" by one, though: LDraw.org-Certified. Of course, this might have stronger implications than LDraw.org-compatible. On the other hand, maybe that's a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Ok... I'll throw it on the to-do list to dig up the poll documentation and change it. Lazy me! -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) not that anyone ever heard of it, but ESQL (IBM language for MQSI) uses double hyphen for comments. That said, if I had to choose between '--' and '//', I'd go with the slashes. oooh - here's an idea. We could change the Ldraw.org poll (which (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | New Primitive Class
|
|
Actually, it's not a new primitive, but it doesn't fit under the current naming scheme. My current 33089 (in PT) is a rather bulky file (55KB), so to streamline it, I decided to make a few new primitives. One of these was a torus with major radius 1 (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Sorry, 'LDraw.org-compatible programs'. Which is poor terminology, I think. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I never imagined those numbers would be a permanent part of the document. I thought they'd go away once we accepted the BFC standard. But that never actually happened, so the document was never finalized, so the numbers never went away. When (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Hmm, the sequel to a hyphen... I like hyphen or double hyphen because they contrast more with the surrounding text. I agree with Kevin, anything's better than nothing. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Travis, By definition, all the programs have to be able to handle the original unadorned comments of type 0 records. This is a requirement for all 0.27 compliant programs. This means that anything we don't recognize as a meta-command is a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Steve, *anything* is better than nothing. Trying to read a DAT/LDR program that has *lots* of comments with interspersed meta-commands is really hard. I've programmed for 30 years, and I've never seen hyphen used as a start of comment. I guess (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) LDraw compatible, or LDraw.org compatible? ;-) You made a distinction before -- are you using the same metric now as well? Just curious. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I've been avoiding weighing in on this issue but.. How about a double hyphen, '--' -Orion (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) The point of setting an 'LDraw.org Compatible' format would be to set the framework of LDraw files, not to restrict what can be in LDraw files. If a programmer wants to implement thier (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Do we really need to put the revision number next to every line? I find that astheically annoying. The way we do it in Nuke land is put a heavy black line in the margin next to all the lines that changed from the last revision. -Orion (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I was trying to refrain from posting too many messages on issues that had already been cleared up. Besides, I'm trying to collect my thoughts on the SB for a single post. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Not really. The important thing with the parts library is that files are accepted and added the distribution file. We don't even have a '0 Official' any more - now it's '0 LDRAW_ORG'. I was envisioning the 'LDraw.org Compatible' program to be (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) What's wrong with -? Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I think that's all right. (...) Hey, it looked like so much fun ... I don't think you were around for the old days. I might not have replied to every message in .cad, but it was close to that. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I think it could, in models and unofficial stuff. But I don't think it would be useful in the official parts library. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
(...) Make sure you've installed LDRAW027.EXE -- that should resolve the runtime 200 problem. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
But, isn't that more-or-less exactly what happens with the parts library? (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) So we (well, the SB eventually) decide on one way, stick to it, and implement it in programs. We can put a request in to Michael Lachmann to change the insertion of "WRITE" (which is an improper use of a meta-command) with "//" so future (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Good point. Thanks for nit-correcting, I think the intent is there on my part but semantics can play a role in whether or not people like/dislike an idea. (...) You're right on that part. That's why it would be a good thing to encourage (not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) They might be comfortable with any number of conventions, but I guarantee they will forget sometimes if you try to require them to change the way they enter comments. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) OK, I'll start working on it. It might take a few days. Before I start, though I'd like to suggest resetting all line-version tags in the current version to 1, and then making my new changes as version 2. Given how long it's been since the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I hadn't thought about NOCLIP. (...) I think that FORCE would be more useful if it overrode NOCERTIFY, but not NOCLIP. When you say NOCERTIFY, you're saying you don't know how the file should be culled. When you say NOCLIP, you're saying you (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Has a hyphen been used anywhere for a similar purpose? I'm not aware of it. I'm one of the least-techy of the bunch, though I can hack some code, and I think it's better to stick to what most know, as long as it's not cumbersome like {}. I (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) you mean $puctuation++ > ! $puctuation ? $goodness++ : $goodness-- ; ? (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Right. Elsewhere in the thread you'll see I tested it in LEdit and it crashed -- that was soon ruled out of the discussion, at least for now :-) (...) Nit: That's a bit too much for my tastes. What's wrong with //? -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Very good point. In my conversations with a few semi-outsiders to the LDraw community, they believed systems could (or should, I see your [1] and rase you that) be established to encourage participation and compliance, but could not/should not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) ROFL!!! :-) -Tim PS - Steve, while you posted quite a bit all at once, this isn't quite the "shock and awe" I was expecting. ;-) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I believe Lar mad the case that the SB can/should include people from all camps. I for the most part agree, because we need perspectives from the various types of people who create [elements of] and use this system. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Charter Org for LDraw.org (was: Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility))
|
|
(...) Cool. I put 'nonprofit' in to emphasize the nature of the organization. While I've taken a cursory look at information on "nonprofit corporations," I'm not totally aware of alternatives. Obviously, we want to travel down the route that creates (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) ... and no. IMO, if the meta statement isn't listed in the current file format document, it's open to change. The meta-commands on that document (pulling from memory): STEP, PRINT, WRITE, SAVE (?!), (I gave up, dug out the code) PAUSE, CLEAR, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) can snag a copy of that. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: A call to membership!
|
|
[XPFUT lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw] (...) I'm interested and willing. Count me in. Although I may be a dissenting voice on a number of organizational issues. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Right. But newer OS's and video cards are becoming less compatible with DOS programs, especially DOS programs that do graphics. I used to be able to run LDraw with Super-VGA resolutions (with Win95, I think). I haven't been able to that in (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Hmm. To tell you the truth, I don't remember. My main use for it is to make sure patterns are rendered on the backside of transparent solids. I will *allow* that NOCLIP/CLIP can be used to allow non-compliant sections of code, but I don't feel (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Absolutely. :) The spec was never ratified or 'officially' accepted as a standard. Parts of it are have definitely evolved as the defacto standard, but that's not the same as having a good, documented standard to follow. I think the spec can (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I could kind of see that, but not in the parts library. I would expect that any file in the library that specifies NOCLIP does it for a good reason, and should not be overrode (overridden?). What I could maybe see in the parts library is a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) During the rendering process, it is necessary to keep track of both the 'accumulated clip-state' and the 'local clip-state'. The accumulated clip-state is logically equivalent to boolean ANDing the local clip-states of all the parent files. As (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Charter Org for LDraw.org (was: Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility))
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote: [snippity-do-dah] (...) Whoa there! There is a *huge* difference between a 'formal organization' and a 'formal nonprofit organization'. If you were using 'nonprofit' informally, please *don't*. 'nonprofit' (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) Nit: we've already *got* an LDraw file format spec. Next item! (...) 'Control' is heavy-handed for my tastes. 'Support', 'endorse', 'coordinate' are all better. All a standards body could do is manage the documentation, and (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Dan, You program in *Perl*. Of course you think it's good to always have punctuation. You probably think more punctuation == better. ;) Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) True, but that's no reason to have (unnecessary) complications. The computer will understand whatever we set it up to understand. LIGHTVALS, {LIGHTVALS}, 32.6, it's all the same to the silicon. Syntax is for users, beginning or advanced. If we (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Depends on how open or closed the SB is. I think there's a place for part authors and users as well as developers. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Tim, I've been reading this thread, and you keep mentioning this 'Steve' person. 'Steve this' and 'Steve that'. I must have gone through 100 messages by now, and no 'Steve' has shown up. I'm beginning to suspect you are imagining this 'Steve' (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I really agree with Dan on this point. As I mentioned in another message, a standards body could certainly come up with suggestions for standard commands, but they wouldn't have any power of enforcement. About the only thing ldraw.org could[1] (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Because it wouldn't be supported by LDraw and LEdit. Part files frequently include comments, so any standard option for commenting should be allowable in the parts library. (...) Some people already use COMMENT. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Rosco, Unfortunately, MLCAD's use of WRITE is a really bad example, because MLCAD is mis-using an already standard meta-command. Plus, 0 WRITE statements are not allowed in official parts, so any part authors who create their files in MLCAD (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I support that (general) guideline. The only real difficulty is if the meta-command becomes generally accepted, and is 'promoted' to being an accepted standard. We'd either want a different prefix for org standards, or no prefix. Either way (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I agree with Larry -- support it publically. Recognize '0 LTrax xxxx' as the primary syntax for the command. Especially, let the author of the original command know that you are implement their command. Hopefully, that will give them cause to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Did you flag your changes? Basically, you should have changed the rev to 11 (and updated the modification date). And put an 11 on the left side of any lines you changed. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
Lars Hassing wrote: > Ryan Farrington wrote: >>I have run into this problem with Windows XP, not so much with LEdit and >>LDraw--I use L3P more often. Thankfully, there is still a Win98 SE computer >>in the house! > > In Windows XP you can open a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Full orthographic town view
|
|
(...) The first run with -ca1 should give an (almost) orthographic look. If you want a 100% orthographic view you should put the keyword "orthographic" into the POV file. But why would you want the first run then? To place the camera? /Lars (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) I think I agree with that. Actually, I could go either way. (...) Right. (...) I'm opposed to allowing additional comments between INVERTNEXT and the statements it affects -- one program's 'comment' is another program's 'meta-statement'. OTOH, (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Sharing directories with models/parts
|
|
Hi Sybrand, As far as I know, the answer is no because you can only set the Ldraw base path in MLCAD. I suppose the program then figures out Ldraw\P, Ldraw\Parts and Ldraw\Models by itself. However, there is no limit to saving files in a common (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Part 892 [DAT]
|
|
Hi, my name is Johan Vettefors and I've been lurking around here for some time. I have a question about the ldraw library. The part 892.dat which the tringle with clip in for example the lego sets speeder bikes and naboo swamp is NOT identical to (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part 4180
|
|
(...) I thought I remembered a more recent discussion about this, but I can't find it. What I'm seeing is that really instead of the current part 4180 there should be three composite parts: 4180c01--Brick 2 x 4 with Permanent Black Train Wheels (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.db.brictionary, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Standards Body Thoughts
|
|
Hi Chris - (...) I agree that one of you should be involved on this committee/board. (...) I'm a fan of real-time chat or phone, and while I won't be participating as a member of the board, encourage the members to use such methods. (...) Ok. Steve (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Thanks Dan, I created page (URL) that has my current list of known meta-commands for LDraw 0.27 as well as those that have been invented since. Kevin (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: converting SW assembly files to Ldraw??
|
|
(...) Thanks!! :) If you have succeeded and finished the converter, I'll certainly give you feedback. I'm curious what the result will be and most likely you too. Nathanael (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: converting SW assembly files to Ldraw??
|
|
Hi Darrel (...) I totally agree!! Both programs have their own specific features, combining in a way would be great! (...) Thanks for the advise! I'll have a look. (...) Thanks again! No I did not try that (yet). First of all I don't have much (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw based import parts
|
|
(...) ok thanks darrell. if you, or anyone else really likes these parts i make, i have added a feedback form page (testing it anyway) at www.geocities.com/tb...dback.html my next 3 choices for kits are: drift kit : example (URL) kit : example (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Sharing directories with models/parts
|
|
Hello all, A friend of mine asked me the following question related to MLCad and I couldn't help him, but maybe some of you know more about this. Is het possible to change the directory Models so that different people can use the same directory, for (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) In Windows XP you can open a command prompt by selecting All Programs/Accessories/Command Prompt, or by typing "cmd" in the Run... dialog. /Lars (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) checking. (...) I guess I should have picked this up in the final checking for the 2003-01 parts release. Regardless of the results of this discussion, I have submitted a fixed part to the Parts Tracker. Chris (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Actually this is stated in the BFC spec but it wasn't enforced until the PT was created. -Orion (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) There are currently a number of flags that indicate that a file is a part. The official one is only present in files that have been updated since it was made official. However, this isn't a problem, since any BFC-certified part is guaranteed (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) I personally feel that whitespace should be ignored. However, if that is the case, the BFC spec should probably be updated to note this. It might also be argued that further comments after the INVERTNEXT should also be ignored. However, I (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Actually, no it wouldn't. It would render incorrectly after the primitive was BFC certified if you guessed wrong about the ultimate orientation of the polygons in the primitive. However, until the primitive is certified, it will not be BFC'd, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | MoonBase Corridor 2.0 ? [DAT]
|
|
I was playing around with moonbase ideas, but the current standard corridors only allow one MF to walk through at a time and aren't big enough for trams or monorails : ( I took a stab at a new revision of a moonbase corridor. The 4 red (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.models)
|
| |
| | Moonbase Corridor [DAT]
|
|
Just a minimal Moon Base Corridor I couldn't find a DAT file anywhere so I made one. HTH, -JSM 0 Untitled 0 Name: corridor.dat 0 Author: Jason S. Mantor 0 Unofficial Model 0 ROTATION CENTER 0 0 0 1 "Custom" 0 ROTATION CONFIG 0 0 1 7 -70 24 0 1 0 0 0 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.models)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
I saved this thread for later reading, and I've got a few questions now. Sorry if I'm resurrecting something everyone thought was dead :D (...) Once the parts library is fully BFC certified, will there ever be a need to use CLIP or NOCLIP? I'm not (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) No I thin khe meant that only new and updated primitives are required to be BFC compliant to be accepted to the parts tracker. Parts are still accepted that aren't certified though that is preferable. Though I'm not sure I've seen anything (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote: > Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 1 > 9 INVERTNEXT 2 > 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used immediately before a 3 > 9 subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately 4 > 9 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: A call to membership!
|
|
(...) Nope not yet. (...) Kevin (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: OT: Anyone heard from Michael Lachmann lately ?
|
|
(...) I just had email exchanges with him about permission to use his meta-command definitions in our LDraw specification document. Kevin (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw based import parts
|
|
(...) OK, cool; I might even make one of my students do it! LOL. But again, be aware we won't even be starting again until the Fall - August 2003...California's budget crisis has meant we had to cut a bunch of classes (including the one that was (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: A call to membership!
|
|
(...) Woot! :) (...) That would be cool. A little daunting, since L3P has quite a few nice controls, although LDGLite could probably handle them. I had talked with Don a year or more ago, and at the time we felt a tool-driven image renderer was the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat? [DAT]
|
|
The file has these lines: 0 BFC INVERTNEXT 1 16 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 6 box5.dat Is an empty line allowed after INVERTNEXT? Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 9 INVERTNEXT 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) insist? Did you mean await? The whole file including primitives should be BFC compliant to have the CERTIFY. (...) Yes, a NOCERTIFY can be considered as a (temporary) turn-off-BFC, and other BFC statements should silently be ignored. /Lars (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I like that. I think a clear indication that a comment is in fact a meta statement is needed. And I find "0 {META} " more distinct than (META), <META>, {BFC}, <BFC>, MODULENAME and whatever else has been suggested. But we're still stuck with (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | OT: Anyone heard from Michael Lachmann lately ?
|
|
I had been conversing with him about an MLCAD port via email back in December and January, but I haven't heard anything from him since ... I just hope everythings OK : ) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
