 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Out of the thirty odd responses I've got so far to my questions on TBB there hasn't been one mentioning ease of discussion so I'll hazard a guess that it's not a big deal. Tim (15 years ago, 15-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) I'm with you on this Tore. I sure I've said this before but I despise the flat posting style of forums like phpBB and I like threaded discussions. Threads allow the conversation to wander to 2 or more different but related discussions while (...) (15 years ago, 15-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) 1) Have you ever heard of LDraw? And if you have do you know what it is? Have you ever considered using it but decided against it? If so why? Did you know the parts are all designed by volunteers? Yes, I have heard of L-Draw and use it quite a (...) (15 years ago, 15-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Yes, and no, or rather, maybe. In Delphi you would do something like Write(Format('%g', [Value])); i.e more or less the same format strings as in C. But, it is type-safe at runtime :-) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) (URL) This article> gives some answers to this question. (...) I think there are still as much activity on the subject as before. The activity is simply divided but spread. For instance, I'm amazed about the recent work by Sergio Reano (SR3D) (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
LDraw/LCad etc. are not nearly as dead as you think they are! The pioneering days are long gone, and the package of tools has entered the world of "mainstream software". People simply trust everything to work, and will only make themselves known (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
--snip-- (...) I felt you were preaching to the choir here so decided to broaden the questions and broaden the audience. Hopefully this will give us a bit of an idea of how the broader community deals with LDraw. (URL) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) Honestly I don't think LDD is so much of a competitor for many people. Its limited parts pallette keeps it quite restrictive. LDraw will always be the high end tool for LEGO CAD due to its versatility and when people (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Times changes and also the behaviour of the people. The internet changes much quicker. But I think the most important item is that LUTNET and also LDraw.org does not make adverticements. So how should be people find us. The new possibilities (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) There are plenty of people still using LDraw and plenty of newcomers to it.In some ways I think it's a victim of its own success. The software is well developed and easy to use and the parts library is vast and easy to install. As such people (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | The future of LDraw?
|
|
There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites. Questions like "Why is it so and what can be done to get people back to Lugnet?" are discussed. Some (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Thanks for the info. I've always used perl scripts to convert oddly formatted data to a consistent format and then read it like that. Nice to know I don't always have to. If it could only read some of the more bizarre Fortran formats I'd never (...) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) All float specifiers (e, E, f, g, G) are treated identically by the scanf functions. When scanning floats, they always recognize all float formats. One other thing about %g on output is that it automatically strips trailing zeros, which %f (...) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Ahhh. I'd never heard of %g before now. I'm so used to %f and %e it had never occured to me that there might be a mixed option. Handy to know as I suspect it would be helpful in reading files of unknown format. I'm sure Delphi has some hideous (...) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Actually, in C, %g does exactly this. Having said that, I think LDDP is a Delphi app, so it uses Pascal, and I don't remember how Pascal does formatting. --Travis (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) I definitely know this. I see them far too much in my job as a numerical physicist ;) My point is that to write in mixed format (some %f and others %e) requires some strange coding unless there is a weird language which does it automatically. (...) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Hmm, I thought I killed that "feature". I'll look into it as I find time to finish up LDDP 2.1 -Orion (15 years ago, 11-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) I mostly agree with this policy. (...) There is nothing strange in the routines, it is the standard format used to represent very large or very small numbers in a limited number of digits. Actually since values never get very large in LDraw (...) (15 years ago, 11-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) My suggestion would be to read numbers in that notation but never write them. I'm not sure why LDDP would write them that way (it would require some strange output routines) but if one thing writes them then it's best to read them. Tim (15 years ago, 11-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) I think it should be forbidden in official files as the benefit is very small and it is not good human readable. Benefit would be smaller filesize, as 0.0004 (6 characters) has more characters than 4E-4 (4 characters). Against could be 0.4 (3 (...) (15 years ago, 10-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
