Subject:
|
Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:05:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1886 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> I don't think the above looks like stuff that goes into an LDraw file format,
> unless we introduce a whole bunch of meta commands. When it is this far off, is
> it worth forcing it into the LDraw file format? I suppose the advantage is that
> people can define their hose type directly in an LDraw file and have it ported
> around with it. Hmmm...
Actually, I'd very much like to figure what definition information can be put in part
files, and how model files could then specify the specific way the part is deformed.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source?
|
| (...) Hi Steve, I'm still trying to understand this terse response. Right now, LSynth uses meta commands and part usages to define constraints for the synthesis process. LSynth performs in-line synthesis. That is to say, it does not spit out the (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why aren't LDRAW tools Open Source?
|
| (...) Well, I actually want to take this kind of thing to the LSC for review. (...) I had not made it this far. I had just made it to the concept phase. There are a few things that control hose synthesis; hose type, hose segment part type, segment (...) (21 years ago, 16-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
48 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
|
|
|
|
