 | | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
|
(...) Could you please expalin why this is so? I guess I just don't get it. (...) Groups are an invention in MLCad. (...) Ah, we are talking the same thing. "983.dat" is no good. Yes, the tags give you metion give you a unique name (within the scope (...) (19 years ago, 27-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
|
(...) That's correct, but irrelevant. The hieriarchy is communicated with one single MPD in a way that would be impossible using one single DAT/LDR - if you put it together correctly, of course. (...) I have never used LPub so I'm not familiar with (...) (19 years ago, 27-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: NR-75 - The Ghan (The way it should have been done ;-) )
|
|
(...) Well, I wasn't quite satisfied with that render, so I had another go. (URL)(click the pic) a (19 years ago, 27-Oct-05, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
|
(...) Ha, ha, ha.... I had this long winded response argument all typed out, and then Mozilla died. Probably divine intervention. Let me try and see if I can get this one out with less energy. According to this specification: (URL) provides two (...) (19 years ago, 26-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
|
(...) But as I said, if you put all instances, that need to be named, in a subfile of its own you *have* named instances. It wouldn't be too difficult to write a helper program (or add-on) that does this folding for you (creating a subfile of (...) (19 years ago, 26-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
