 | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote: [snip-snap] (...) hmm ... I always understod .ldr as scene file and .dat just for parts. at least this was what I thought reding from tim's post back in 2001: (URL) extension change is just that. Nothing changes (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Yes, I would be great. But while it doesn't distinguish, we have to deal with it. I think the naming convention we had had before the .ldr extension, with officicial models named m926.dat and so on, solves this problem. So I suggest you name (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Getting back to the problem at hand, yes I do think this is a bug in L3P, the line specifically says include 926.ldr. Maybe L3P should include the extension as part of the inc file name unless it is .DAT? Of course that will break if the parts (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) I read Steve's email as saying that they shouldn't and that the extension doesn't matter but IMO it does. Rereading it, it sounds like the extension does matter but that it shouldn't be used to identify the type of file which I agree with. /me (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) I don't think L3P pays any attention to parts.lst. To be honest, I don't think that it should. It's not an editor that's expected to give you a list of parts available for use. (And to be honest, I think that parts.lst is a generally bad idea, (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) The point is that it is not MLCad which differentiates, it is mklist. Tim (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) But that DOES differentiate between .dat and .ldr by the very fact it has the extension in parts.lst. If it didn't, 3010.dat and 3010.ldr would be interchangeable everywhere. This means that 3010.dat is NOT the same as 3010.ldr but L3P appears (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) No, it doesn't. (...) MLCad has no such restriction - that restriction is put in place by mklist. Go ahead - create parts/3010.LDR, edit parts.lst, add 3010.LDR and a description, it will magically appear in MLCad and be usable just as any (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Actually, there's really no easy way to do part detection, but filenames really aren't a good idea. I'm pretty sure Lars is fully aware of the part detection problem (since it also affects the seams option in L3P), and there have been (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scorpion
|
|
Eric Sophie schrieb: (...) It is now on the parts tracker. mikeheide (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Surely the very fact it is .ldr instead of .dat differentiates it from the lego parts. MLCad doesn't recognise 3010.ldr as a valid part, and it allows both blah.dat and blah.ldr in the same mpd file. (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) I agree with that - it's much easier for the user to eliminate such conflicts (eg call the set file set-926.ldr) than expect the software to make such decisions for you. ROSCO (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Isn't there an official order of preference for where a file comes from (eg. check MPD firsrt, directory second and parts directory third)? If so then the most sensible way of processing would be to go through that, which would ensure no (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
I agree and disagree with this. I agree that it would be good (for now) if L3P only substituted LGEO parts for files with a .dat extension. Or, even better, if (a) the file being substituted has the UNOFFICIAL/LDRAWORG meta-statement and states it (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
hi lars, looks like L3P doesn't distinguish between part-files (.dat) and scene-files (.ldr) when I use LGEO parts. have a look at the following pic. when I render a .mpd (which containes the subfile 926.ldr refering to the sets number) without LGEO (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tweening (and some Backwards Engineering)
|
|
(...) Hi Tore, Finding the angles is quite complicated and depends on the choice of how you express the angles. The main way of expressing an angle are Euler angles ((URL) however there is another way to express angles which is slightly more (...) (19 years ago, 12-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Tweening (and some Backwards Engineering)
|
|
I've been thinking a little about Tweening the last two weeks. Linear Motion Tweening between two keyframes is very simple I guess. If x(0)=50 and x(1)=250, then x(0.1)=50+(250-50)*0.1=70. "kx+m". But then I came to the rest of the LDraw Type 1 (...) (19 years ago, 11-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about image generation
|
|
(...) I forgot to mention -- the generator uses the 0 COLOR statement to define custom color values. But I don't think color 47 is tweaked very much. Steve (19 years ago, 10-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about image generation
|
|
(...) And I received plenty of info! Thanks to all who responded--your answers have been clear and thorough and very helpful. Dave! (19 years ago, 10-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about image generation
|
|
(...) The key bit is the -W option -- it draws thick lines. The $scale is the width of the line, in pixels. For the ldraw/partsref/peeron images, we use -W3 (but we also set scale to -S3, for a 300% zoom). -Q is supposed to result in higher-quality, (...) (19 years ago, 9-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
