Subject:
|
Re: Some comments on the LPub 2.2.0.9 beta
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:40:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1087 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Andreas Maier wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Andreas Maier wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.cad, Andreas Maier wrote:
> >
> > Before we start, lets talk a bit about where I'm going with LPub.
<much snippage>
> > You are focusing on GUI for the project defaults (saved in config.lpb) and I'm
> > focusing on the temporal aspects of WYSIWYG editing. Both are valid
> > perspectives, and neither solves the whole problem.
>
>
> I think this hits the nail: We need both to have a complete solution.
<snip>
> >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > 5. Calculating the max camera distance (Utilities menu)
> > > > >
> > > > > a) The camera viewing angle should have an effect on
> > > > > the required minimum distance, but the menu entry
> > > > > comes up with always the same distance regardless
> > > > > of the angle. The viewing angle does have an
> > > > > effect on the size of the generated images,
> > > > > though.
<much snippage>
> Also, the menu entry says "Max Camera Distance". Of course, it is the maximum of
> the single distances ... but I would rather call this "Minimum" from a user
> perspective. It is the minimum he or she should use.
Really it is the maximum of the minimum camera distances. I've changed it to
Min....
<more snippage>
> Going with the meta commands is the right way. If I think about it, I consider
> them actually _required_ to create building instructions from a model
> automatically. Currently, a lot of manual work is needed after LPub is finished,
> if you want to have something printable or for a book. The meta-commands would
> make the model self-contained w.r.t. biulding instructions.
Yes. This is where I ended up. It is the temporal nature of building
instructions that makes this so.
> So far on my perception about the value of the LPub meta commands. Now, IMHO it
> really should be a CAD program that sets them. This does not mean that LPub and
> MLCAD need to merge, it just means that MLCAD would need to support the LPub
> meta commands in some form. Let's discuss which of the meta commands would be at
> the top of the list for a first step, and how they should be presented by a CAD
> program. We could do this as part of working on a description of them, together
> with suggested presentation within a CAD program. If you post an initial
> description, I could take a stab at expanding that and trying to think about how
> to present it in a CAD program.
MLCad has the concept of CSIs, but not PLIs. It has a textual BOM, not visual.
So only CSIs have a parallel in MLCad. MLCad has a background meta-command,
which applies to CSIs, but LPub does not honor it.
The other LPUB assem meta-commands are:
LPUB ASSEM MARGINS
LPUB ASSEM PLACEMENT
Neither of these have any representation in MLCad.
Most of LPub's meta-commands are related to layout, which is a concept MLCad was
not designed to support.
I don't see how these would be represented by MLCad. Instead I see the need for
a WYSIWYG layout editor, which creates and modifies these meta-commands as we
edit building instructions page by page.
If we want to move the PLI, we just click on it and move it. If we want to move
the CSI within the page, we just click on it and move it. If we want to move
the step number, we just click on it to move it. Click on the PLI and you can
get controls that let you change the PLI: the types and values for constraining,
border, background, fonst, the default camera view, the scale, etc.
Pulldown menu for the page lets you change page attributes: size, background,
margins, page number attributes.
All these things are best communicated though a graphical method, but adding it
to MLCad would be adding an entire new concept layer on MLCad. This is why I
think LPub with a WYSIWYG layout editor is the way to go.
If there was a way to integrate the two, I would make it easy to pop over to
MLCad to edit the design, and then pop back to LPub to see the effects. The
tighter we can make the feedback loop between these two the more efficient they
will be to use.
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Some comments on the LPub 2.2.0.9 beta
|
| (...) Thanks for the invitation. I think it may end up to be a time problem, but I see what I can do. (...) I think this hits the nail: We need both to have a complete solution. (...) Thanks for clarifying the terminology. so I was intending to talk (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
