Subject:
|
Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2004 04:14:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1019 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
>
> > In 973p11.dat the first line reads:
> > 0 ~Moved to 973p1a, 973p1b, 973p1c
> >
> > Is there any spec supporting this strange usage?
> > Is it really LDraw compatible? Or will original LDraw and other renderers have
> > similar problems as my utilities?
>
> Sorry, Tore, but this usage was unavoidable.
I do denifinitely no agree at all. (Did anybody expect me to? ;) )
> This isn't a normal part-move, the
> migration from 973p11 to 973p1a, 973p1b, and 973p1c is fixing an anomoly in the parts
> library. 973p11 is coded so that the undecorated surfaces of the part are a fixed
> color, and the patterned areas are variable-colored. The new files are code in the
> normal manner -- the patterns are fixed-color, and the part is variable-colored.
>
> At the time 973p11.dat was created, having a variable-colored pattern was considered
> useful, because it allowed one part file to model 3 different patterns. However, in
> every other case, in LDraw and outside of LDraw (for example, on Peeron), patterns
> are treated as fixed-colored. Basically, 973p11.dat is incompatible with other parts
> catalogs.
>
> > (Btw, how is it supposed to be interpreted???)
>
> The translation is like this: Look in the model file to see what color is being used
> against 973p11.dat. Translate as follows:
> black 973p11.dat --> white 973p1a.dat
> blue 973p11.dat --> white 973p1b.dat
> red 973p11.dat --> white 973p1c.dat
> green 973p11.dat --> white 973p1j.dat
> other 973p11.dat --> no translation possible
>
> Unfortunately, that requires code in your part-move program to handle 973p11.dat (and
> some earlier changes of the same nature, released in the last year or so).
>
> Another thought for rendering datsville: delete all the WRITE lines out of the
> moved-to stub files.
>
> Steve
Tell me you are not serious about that. Is that what we are supposed to
recommend all MLCad users when they stumble on this issue, as well as I have to
recommend it to any movedto.exe-users (if any)?
A far better solution had been to keep the 973p11.dat as base part but retitle
it to "~Minifig Torso with Dungarees Pattern", and then let p1a, p1b, p1c, and
p1j call on p11 with hardcoded colours, or, if that is impossible, with other
subparts. That shouldn't cause Peeron any problems, I think(?) AND, most
important, full backwards compability will be restored.
I suggest that these LDraw incompatible part be fixed to the next part update,
not the softwares that stumbles upon them.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
| (...) Sorry, Tore, but this usage was unavoidable. This isn't a normal part-move, the migration from 973p11 to 973p1a, 973p1b, and 973p1c is fixing an anomoly in the parts library. 973p11 is coded so that the undecorated surfaces of the part are a (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
