Subject:
|
Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:00:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
19380 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
The only place you’re allowed to access the contents of an MPD are inside the
MPD itself. So, lets take the minifig head as an example. You wouldn’t be
able to put its “everything but the face region” subpart into an MPD, because
the only logical candidate for the MPD file is the top-level part. But if
the sub-part is in the MPD, it’s only available to that single top-level
part. Subfiles themselves could be MPD; you just can’t hide the subfiles used
by patterned parts in an MPD. Am I making more sense now?
|
Absolutely.
I wasn’t advocating sticking ‘public’ subparts into the part’s MPD. Just to be
clear.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| (...) You know, it occurs to me that if MPD's were allowed as parts, it would be a GREAT place to put a texture file (properly hex encoded, no doubt). They're almost always single-part-only. And if one wanted better textures than "come standard?" (...) (15 years ago, 11-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| First of all, let me say that while my previous post probably implied that I'm against allowing MPDs as parts, I am in fact still open to the possibility. I'm just not sure I'm completely convinced by the arguments given so far. (...) The only place (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
68 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
|
|
|
|
