 | | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) just for the record. first time I came across custom folder support was in mid november 2003 doing betatesting for mlcad's new release. for me one of the most significant improvements in 3.01 'cos for the first time I could separate unofficial (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) Hey, you're right. I wonder how the Windows PATH variable handles that. Probably it just doesn't work... Anyhow, the unix PATH variable uses ':' as the delimiter (at least with the bash shell). So maybe '|' is better, even though you need to (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.4
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, correcting the (URL) oversight Ross Crawford pointed out>, and correcting a mistake I caught in Subsection 6.03(e). In that section, we neglected to change "Executive Committee" to "Steering Committee," after (...) (21 years ago, 11-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) Sure, I just chose | because ; is allowed in filenames. /Lars (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
(...) I like this idea. Can you support delimiting paths by ';' instead of '|'? ';' is more in line with the delimitation in the PATH environment varible. -Orion (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDRAWPREDIRS LDRAWPOSTDIRS - additional search paths
|
|
Several users have asked for an option to L3P for specifying additional search paths for parts. LDView already has implemented "Extra Search Dirs" to search after the usual ones. I think it would be of common interest and for the benefit of the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [request] filter for PT queue
|
|
I just tried going through the Queue on the Parts Tracker ("(URL) trying to find files I haven't already reviewed. I gave up after the first thirty to forty or so files that I'd already reviewed but had forgotten about. I gave up because I was out (...) (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
(...) Thanks for catching this, Ross. -Tim (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
(...) I believe this should be 6.05? (...) ROSCO (21 years ago, 10-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.3
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, adding a new Section 6.02 and 6.05 (causing some clauses to be re-numbered), per discussion here: (URL) This copy of the draft supercedes the draft this message is in reply to. If there are any modifications to (...) (21 years ago, 9-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) Not sensing any disagreement here - so if no one's spoken up by the end of the weekend, I'm going to add these clauses to the drafts and call for ratification. -Tim (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I'm not sure you're right there. I think Steve may have been trying to achieve a specific dithered look, different from the effect created by the pre-defined metal code in say ldview or ldglite, probably to better differentiate some static (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Whoops. Silly me. It's amazing the tricks memory can play on you ;-). (...) While this is still probably do-able, I think my original argument about the possible creation of future tags still holds (unless you're also agreeing to the enforced (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Well, I don't think that qualifies as an argument for its inclusion in the new !COLOUR statement, since those are already covered by the more precise pre-defined materials. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Developers! What softwares? ([LSC] Colour Def...)
|
|
(...) Why not just RGB instead of the not too intuitive VALUE? (I mean, it colud be any parameter value) Developers, what softwares will be updated to support this? L3P? ML-Cad? L3Lab? LDView? ...? /Tore (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) After giving some thought to this - I can't think of alternate wording that would really do the issue justice, and not end up unnecessarily lengthy and awkward. If we start looking for CoI under every rock, I think that's taking it too far. My (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't want to specify that some parameters are order-specific, and others aren't. I'd rather they are all one way or the other. Goes back to easier 'correct' parsing. However, I'm sure the entries in ldconfig.ldr will always have their tags (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, the spec says just the opposite, that tags (keywords) are not case-sensitive: (...) That seems reasonable. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I've most recently used dithering to simulate chrome/metal/metallic parts. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) OK, I'm alright with that. (...) If that's a needed parameter, I'd rather have it follow the METALLIC keyword. (...) I'm ok with that, too. Is '50%' really an adequate description? There can be many brush patterns... Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
