Subject:
|
Re: some thoughts on ldraw parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:41:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
774 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss writes:
> <snip>
>
> I don't think that erasing parts is a good idea, you want every part you
> possibly can get your hands on...
I agree, but Adam seemed to have made up his mind...
> > But it doesn't really solve the problem of finding the piece you want, when
> > you want it. How are you going to find what you want, from the mass
> > library on the parts-server?
>
> I think the problem in general is the hierarchical organisation scheme. Trees
> are ALWAYS hard to search, mostly because of the stuff that doesn't fit
> whatever division scheme was devised. If there were a way to get multiple
> views into the data by criteria that would be a big help.
Yah, that would be good. That's the reason for the 0 KEYWORDS
meta-statement on some newer part files: to provide a mechanism somewhere
between text-searching and categories and affinities.
> Instead of having to remember whether the "rollbar" is a 1x2 tile with a rod,
> or a tile with a handle, or a rod with a base I would want to be able to
> say "show me all the parts that are rod system compatible" and another time
> say "show me all the parts that have clips on them" and get some of the same
> parts both ways.
Hmm. Maybe we should more actively pursue a standard list of KEYWORDS,
things like hinge, bar (or rod), clip, etc...
> Having just one partslst is confining. Even LDAO with its recategorization
> doesn't completely help because a part can only go in ONE category.
Very true. I'm just too lazy to implement a good multi-category system.
> I will say this, what I do to speed up my work is gather parts for a
> subassembly. I tried this on the trolley I just drew which was drawn the
> fastest I have ever managed to draw something, given the size (400 parts), I
> got it done in about 4 to 5 hours total over several sessions. (1/2 hour of
> that was fiddling with the yellow tubing)
Something I've thought about for a long time is the concept of a part
palette: a window which you can populate with the elements you know you are
going to need. There was some discussion about this awhile ago, even going
to down the path of saving palettes for later reuse, and restricting
construction to the loaded palette (for use in constructing alternate
models from one set, or in contests, or whatever).
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: some thoughts on ldraw parts
|
| Steve Bliss skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I put (one experimental implementation of) this into LDLIST a while ago, and we discussed a possible file format for 'sets'. But as long as no drawing program accepts a drag'n'drop from LDLIST, it's not a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: some thoughts on ldraw parts
|
| (...) A keyword field can be a very good way to implement this. At one time, I was running an RPG which had a single set of spells, but different types of spell casters could use different ones. I was using a database on the Apple II which had a (...) (24 years ago, 29-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: some thoughts on ldraw parts
|
| In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss writes: <snip> I don't think that erasing parts is a good idea, you want every part you possibly can get your hands on... (...) I think the problem in general is the hierarchical organisation scheme. Trees are ALWAYS hard (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad)
|
36 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
|
|
|
|
