| |
Hi Tim!
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:4.2.0.58.19991208154919.009886f0@pop.osiriscomm.com...
> Because of some of the more recent advancements in software which utilizes
> the .dat file, I have been thinking about what LDraw *is*. I think we
> should firmly establish what LDraw is if there are going to [and there
> will] be more advancements in software and editors for the .dat file • format.
>
> LDraw originated as James' software package, with LDraw, LEdit, and the
> parts libraries. But does it continue to remain just that? It seems now
> that the word 'LDraw' is used to identify a broad range of programs which
> use James' .dat file format and parts libraries, and is no longer limited
> to his original package. I think it prudent to define and publish the
> meaning of the word 'LDraw' when used on its own so it does not become a
> generic term like 'Xerox,' 'Kleenex,' or 'Coke.'
>
> Should 'LDraw' refer to James' original package only? Or should it • include
> new editors like LeoCad, MLCad, etc... which all use James' files for • their
> parts? How should ldraw.org represent these other editors? How should
> ldraw.org and other websites refer to the word 'LDraw?'
>
> If LDraw is to mean only James' original software package, how should we
> refer to the other editors so it identifies them with the dat file
> format? Should they be identified with that?
LDraw is James' software package. It will always be that. It's like 3D
Studio Max or Adobe Photoshop, they have special formats that other software
packages can use, but no one has redefined those names.
> Another question: Because of the ambiguity of the .dat file extension on
> computer systems, should we develop a new file extension that newer • editors
> can use? I realize this might be a controversial question because of
> nostalgia and tradition, but it needs to be asked. If newer editors
> defaulted towards a .ldr (LDraw) file format, but also could read from and
> write to .dat files, would this be acceptable?
I don't think a new extension is needed. But if it turns out that this
would be better for the group as a whole then sure. I guess under one
aspect when you search for *.dat you get a lot more than just part files. A
new extension would make them more unique.
> Please reply with thoughts.
You propose an interesting idea. One that I have thought of before, but
never put form to. We now have several packages that can use the dat file
format for Lego CAD... so what's going to happen to LDraw? Well first...
LDraw is still the premier editor in my book. It is a lot faster than any
of the other packages out there. I like MLCAD a lot, but it seems to take
forever when your model starts getting bigger. LDraw moves at a snap, even
when the files are really big. (This does depend on your system too.)
Honestly, I thought we were all waiting for LDraw2 to come out. I remember
someone was working on it, but I think they have given up because newer
editors have come along.
Oh well... I still think LDraw is on top and will retain its name as a good
software package, rather than a file format for a long time to come.
Adam
PS. Good work on ldraw.org.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | What is 'LDraw?'
|
| Because of some of the more recent advancements in software which utilizes the .dat file, I have been thinking about what LDraw *is*. I think we should firmly establish what LDraw is if there are going to [and there will] be more advancements in (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
