Subject:
|
Re: Some comments on LPub
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:12:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1287 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Andreas Maier wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> > Andy, I'm very impressed with this post on LPub. You are very thorough, and it
> > is clear you've done your homework before asking questions. It is some of the
> > best LPub feedback I've ever gotten.
>
> :-) Thanks for the flowers ...
I was and am particularly appreciative of the fact that you were very thorough
in reading documentation. You also dug deeply and gave explanations that let me
answer questions without having to ask questions.
> > I have reworked the GUI some in LPub beta. I'll check but I think that what you
> > ask for has already been done.
I need to move the PLI small model images check box to the Building Instructions
=> Global => Generate panel.
>
> Verified it and it looks very good. I will be posting some comments on the beta
> in a few days.
OK.
> Again, sounds all very good. Seems to be the full solution to the problem!
I decided it was better to provide the full solution than to have to explain
what was wrong and how to fix it.
>
> If MLCAD saves a new single model file, it does not produce the FILE statement.
> It looks like:
> 0 Untitled
> 0 Name: xx.ldr
> 0 Author: MLCad
> 0 Unofficial Model
> 0 ROTATION CENTER 0 0 0 1 "Custom"
> 0 ROTATION CONFIG 0 0
> 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 104.dat
> 0
>
> Also, MLCAd only allows to save it as .ldr or .dat. Unless the .mpd spec
> disallows that, I think that MLCAD should allow to also save it as .mpd, and it
> should add the FILE statement (there seems to be agreement on that one :-)
I tried a single file in an MPD, and you are right. MLCad won't let you do it.
It is not illegal according to the MPD spec.
>
> If a new model is added, then MLCAD creates a FILE statement for each model, but
> the first one has the full path in it, and the second one does not:
> 0 FILE D:\u\am\privat\Lego\Test\LPub-Comments\2005-03-20\Comment12\xx.ldr
> 0 Untitled
> 0 Name: xx.ldr
> 0 Author: MLCad
> 0 Unofficial Model
> 0 ROTATION CENTER 0 0 0 1 "Custom"
> 0 ROTATION CONFIG 0 0
> 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 104.dat
> 0
> 0 FILE yy.ldr
> 0 New Model
> 0 Name: yy.ldr
> 0 Author: MLCad
> 0 Unofficial Model
> 0
> 0
> I believe MLCAD should not create the path portion in the FILE statement.
I agree.
>
> Is Michael Lachmann listening here or should I post this elsewhere ?
Michael reads this group.
>
> One solution would be a size factor in the config. Another solution would be a
> directive in the LDRAW file that overwrites the default factor and that could
> change it for selected PLIs.
I've added it to the wish list.
> > If we allow for sub-columns and sub-rows in BOMs, we get very densly packed BOM
> > that is extremely busy and hard to keep track of.
>
> For BOMs, I think I should take back some of what I said. I think straight
> forward columns are best for clarity, as you said. It is rather the PLIs where
> the floor space hurts. For instance, I use PowerPoint and so the total space
> is constrained to a printable page (as opposed to a web page where you
> would not necessarily be constrained).
The biggest inefficiency in BOM or PLI packing is that I crop part images and
pack them as rectangles. This means that for long parts, there are large
triangles in the upper left and lower right corners of the part image.
I'm going to cut an official release of LPub, and then I'll start on
parallelogram packing. I know what to do, but I want to get an official LPub
out there soon.
Lots of talk, but not many releases.
> > > 16. b) I'd like to have more control over the number of rows and columns of
> > > parts lists. For the BOMs, there is a maximum columns setting. I'd like to have
> > > the same controls both for BOMs and parts lists. Initial thoughts on "more
> > > controls": Maybe control both number of columns and number of rows, and define
> > > preferences like horizontal or vertical.
> >
> > In LPub beta, you have much more control. You can specify the maximum with, or
> > heigh, or request best area.
> >
> > In best area, LPub goes through all possible aspect ratios of a container, and
> > uses the one that takes the least amount of area.
>
> I was looking for this function in the 2.2.0.9 beta, but seem to be unable to
> find it.
> Can you give me a hint ?
LPUB PLI CONSTRAIN AREA /* Best Area */
LPUB PLI CONSTRAIN SQUARE /* Best Square */
LPUB PLI CONSTRAIN WIDTH <pixels>
LPUB PLI CONSTRAIN HEIGHT <pixels>
LPUB PLI CONSTRAIN COLS <columns>
> > > 16.d) Some control over the ordering of parts in parts lists and BOMs would be
> > > useful. Maybe based on color, part name, part number, with possibility to define
> > > the order in which these criteria are to be applied.
> >
> > The order in PLIs is arbitrary.
>
> Ok with me. The different placement algorithms must be difficult enough.
The sorting in both cases is fixed, but different.
PLI is width, height, part, color.
BOM is width, part class, height, color.
Making this parameterized should not be too hard.
I was on a real burn when adding sub-columns and sub-rows.....
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Some comments on LPub [DAT]
|
| (...) :-) Thanks for the flowers ... (...) correctly. (...) I believe this is sufficient, since the window is scrollable. I did not yet see a case where the top of the contents had fallen off the scrollable contents. In addition, it would be nice if (...) (20 years ago, 26-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
