 | | Re: Problems with LDCfgalt.ldr and between LDConfig.ldr and LDDP
|
|
(...) I seem to remember that part of the reason to have LDCfgalt.ldr was for people who prefer the colored edge lines. Actually, it seems like that was a big part of the reason to have the file. So why drop that functionality? Steve (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: 11-16 primitives?
|
|
(...) My thinking is the 'ragged' format has the least impact - if there are no long part nambers, then the output PARTS.LST would exactly match the classic format, without the user having to know anything about long/short part nambers. Of course, (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with LDCfgalt.ldr and between LDConfig.ldr and LDDP
|
|
(...) LDCfgalt.ldr has been kept for backwards compatibility but colors have been substituted with grey to encourage the shift to the new LDConfig.ldr file and colors. w. (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Problems with LDCfgalt.ldr and between LDConfig.ldr and LDDP
|
|
I noticed two issues with the new versions of LDConfig.ldr: - LDCfgalt.ldr contains only grey colors (#c1c1c1) with black edge. Though I never used LDCfgalt this seems weird to me. - When I install the new LDConfig.ldr, LDDP replacement feature is (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Quirks with Peeron part inventory images
|
|
(...) Hmmm. All the images are re-generated as part of a Parts Update, so that's probably the source of this problem. But nothing has changed in that process since 2009-01. However, at around that time there were problems with the server where these (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Quirks with Peeron part inventory images
|
|
Hi all, I was perusing a Peeron inventory and noticed the wrong images were displayed for a few parts. Parts 3062b, 6233, and 6019 are displayed as other parts in the following inventory: (URL) is a screenshot just in case it is a temporary problem: (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: 11-16 primitives?
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was actually planning a -f to force it to finish and -q for quiet. (...) For now I've added a -8 to make it use the 8.3 format. As per Travis' suggestion it converts to the canonical short form under Windows. The function uppercases (...) (15 years ago, 28-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DStudio 1.1 Beta 3 Released
|
|
(...) Hello Mike, I've looked at those specs when I worked on the program but it seemed, to me, in a very early stage of development. So I build the 'suggestion database' instead for the time being. Also the proposed information far surpasses the (...) (15 years ago, 28-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DStudio 1.1 Beta 3 Released
|
|
I was wondering if your program uses same format as or could output to the LDraw Connection Database? (URL) would be cool to have a single database for connections, and even allow users to "submit" newly discovered connections just by using your (...) (15 years ago, 27-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: 11-16 primitives?
|
|
(...) For MLCAD it doesn't matter. Steve said that MLCAD worked fine with long filenames inside parts.lst. The only reason to put the short filename in is for other programs that might have problems with the long filename. And as long as mklist is (...) (15 years ago, 27-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
