 | | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) I am not sure this is really necessary. The two "door.ldr" model must reside in different folders, so if you encode relative path in file name it should work (not tested with current tools though...) Philo (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) I have been faced with this problem some time ago at my application MPDCenter. I had nearly the same idea but I decided to use "&&" to combine the files that should be in the same file because I do not expect any filename to contain "&&". (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) At the very least it works in MLCAD. I frequently use this to keep parts and subparts in the same file while authoring (87751.dat and s\87751.dat within an MPD file for instance). -Santeri (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) I just tried your kd-bi.mpd that you have exported from LeoCad. Is that pure export? I am asking because those "embedded" files lacks an important line "0 Name: xyz". And for that MPDCenter does not recognize that files. cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format [DAT]
|
|
(...) No, current version doesn't support mpd (next one will). But compositing files were coming from LeoCAD. (...) Here below a sample MPD created with upcoming LeoCAD version. Please make comments here, I'll tell Leonardo. Philo 0 FILE Main_model (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) O NAME is not required for ordinary ldraw files, only official library parts. The only Meta command needed to assemble an mpd file is 0 FILE, so the mpd file from LeoCAD is fine as is. Don (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) You might want to consider offering Philo's subdirectory approach as an alternative to name mangling. Model1.ldr Model1\File1.ldr Model1\File2.ldr Model2.ldr Model2\File1.ldr Model2\File2.ldr Will be combined into Model3.ldr Model1\File1.ldr (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) Then the problem is at MPDCenter. 0 Name is a very good and recommended habit, but not currently required. But I have thought of using 0 Name to solve this problem. When exploding an MPD, the user may be prompted to either use the unique 0 (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) Subfoldering is not always a realistic option. Imagine you have 30 minifigs you wish to individually animate. They all have mfLeftArm.ldr and mfRightArm.ldr as submodels to mfTorso.ldr, and hands on each arm, and maybe tools in their hands. If (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) I tend to view MPD's as something between ZIP archives (without compression though) and file directories. I guess my idea is not yet supported - at least not by very many utilities - but I wish to add new files into already existing MPD model (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) As 0 NAME is not required the only possible way of identifying a parts name is the content in the 0 FILE entry. So I have now two ways to go. 1) Only take the 0 FILE entry 2) If there is no 0 NAME entry - create one on the fly at MPD loading. (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format
|
|
(...) If we ever get there to create an MPD standard, I would suggest way #2: Making 0 NAME compulsary in MPD-ed files. A good safety precaution would be to prompt user if 0 NAME data is present but doesn't match actual file name: * Rename file and (...) (15 years ago, 4-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
