 | | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) Right. I actually manage 350 Macs and I tried to put LDraw on them and ran into several problems that I had to take up with the Mac developers. So anything that makes this easier for admins is good in my opinion. (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Again, I'm not talking about most users - most will be covered by the search paths proposed earlier in the thread. This would only be for non-standard installations, where the people installing WOULD be likely to know what I am (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | V3.00 Bug? / Beauty Error? [DAT]
|
|
Hi Michael, I think that i found a little 'beauty' error / bug in MLCAD V3.00. While playing with MLCAD on the past Hobby Salon in Antwerp (Belgium), my club collegues added new colors to the color palette, the selection just after the Transparent (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) "~Replaced by" is a good option. "Depecrated" is more meaningful to computer-language geeks, but I think "~Replaced by" would do the job. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) Mac OS 9 does not have a command line. That OS is a dinosaur. You can think of Mac OS X as a decendant of BSD, with a Mac OS 9 look-a-like window server. In fact, you can remove Apple's window server and add X11, turning Mac OS X into just (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Never heard the word "deprecated" before, but I can guess its meaning from the context. It's fine, "(Obsolete)" could maybe work too, but I don't care that much about the words chosen, long as it doesn't interfer with any tools. (...) Once I (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Yes, I guess this would work. although I'd prefer to add "(Deprecated)" or something similar to the title. I'm just dismayed that it has taken 7 months for anyone to realise that this causes problems with the toolset. The full list is : 973p11 (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
Please have a look at my suggestion on how to solve this problem, and let me know what you think: (URL) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Sorry, skip the rest of the statement. No need to touch the parts with hard-coded pattern (p1a, p1b, p1c, and p1j). The un-orthodox moved to - remark can be altered to a genuine remark statement, like this: 0 ~Minifig Torso with Dungarees (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Call for Nominations to LDraw.org Steering Committee
|
|
(...) Orion, Renè, many thx. I accept the nomination. w. (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Steering Committee candidate Orion Pobursky - backgrounder and position statement
|
|
In light of the fact that other candidates are doing write ups with regards to their candidacy, I think it would be appropriate for me to do one. -- I've been an LDraw user since 1998 but I didn't start actively participating until Jan of 2002. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) It did for me. When MLCad found the refernce to 973p11.dat and asked if I wanted to upgrade, it changed all the "973p11.dat" references to "973p1a,.dat" references. Note the ",". -Orion (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
"Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4JnF.15r3@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) 0 (...) 0 (...) such. (...) think (...) change of (...) rendering (...) MLCad does not mess it up, but doesn't detect more levels (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
"Don Heyse" <dheyse@hotmail.spam....away.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4BBu.20n4@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) tags (...) Most (...) <BOXES>, (...) %LDRAWDIR%\PARTS\B (...) version (...) Or (...) soft (...) Ahhh I didn't see that in the first (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rosscraw@bigpond.net.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4L6M.1Eyo@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) these (...) in some cases "xxx.exe /LDRAWDIR=C:/LDRAW /LDRAWINI=\\LDRAW_BOX/INI will work too. There is no standard function set in windows (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) On second thought, this would be a bad idea, because objects outside the view cone could affect things, like reflections, shadows, and fog (important!!!). (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) True, but that would be an example of sloppy modeling on the part of the author ;) . (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) It's not exactly surprising that it worked ok, but if he didn't include any MPD support, then the results aren't necessarily correct. Since he presumably only pays attention to the locations of parts that he's willing to box, the references to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation using Datsville
|
|
(...) It worked fine for me. But then, I had to split it up into sections, just like Orion did. (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: New experimental LeoCAD parts update available
|
|
(...) Are the parts compatible? Can they be batch-converted? (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.leocad)
|
