Special:
|
[DAT] (requires LDraw-compatible viewer)
|
Subject:
|
Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:13:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2932 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.cad.dev, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> > > > > Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > MPD does not help this in any way, because again, there is only part
> > > > > > type (file name) and no instance name.
> > > > >
> > > > > But as I said, if you put all instances, that need to be named, in a subfile
> > > > > of its own you *have* named instances. It wouldn't be too difficult to write
> > > > > a helper program (or add-on) that does this folding for you (creating a
> > > > > subfile of selected parts inside an MPD).
> > > > >
> > > > > > LDraw has no support for the naming of instances part usages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Objection. The MPD format gives one way of doing it.
> > > >
> > > > Ha, ha, ha.... I had this long winded response argument all typed out, and then
> > > > Mozilla died. Probably divine intervention. Let me try and see if I can get
> > > > this one out with less energy.
> > >
> > > Um, I'm not sure this has been worked out...
> > >
> > > I think James was saying that the subfiles in an MPD can be treated as the
> > > 'name'. This is true, as long as you also require that each subfile only be
> > > used once.
> > >
> > > So a file like:
> > >
> > > 0 FILE test1.mpd
> > > 1 15 0 -24 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 block1
> > > 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 block2
> > > 0 FILE block1
> > > 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3010.dat
> > > 0 FILE block2
> > > 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3010.dat
> > > 0
> > >
> > > Would have 2 named objects, block1 and block2.
> > >
> > > Nested objects (ie, subfiles using other subfiles) are OK, as long as each
> > > subfile is only used anywhere in the whole model.
> > >
> > > This approach is attractive, because it doesn't require any extra syntax or
> > > meta-statements. But it might not be practical -- it would be a pain to have to
> > > create a new set of minifig subfiles for each character in a crowd scene.
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > That's a very good idea I didn't think of! The approach I was thinking of is
> > unnecessarily complicated. Looks like there will be no need for the tags I
> > mentioned earlier.
>
> Yes, this is what Anders was trying to get me to understand.
>
> The MPD framework provides a name visibility barrier (scope).
>
> I still say that LDraw type 1 lines are used to specify hierarchy. The <file>
> names within the MPD can be used to specify generic type names for specific part
> types in specific instances.
>
> Typically an MPD comprises the entire universe. But when used this way, MPDs
> are galaxies within a universe.
>
> >
> > No pain at all. I think all current minifig generators can be easily updated to
> > have an Animation MPD option as soon as the standard is set. Then the generator
> > will do all the painful job in a breeze.
>
> So, are the things that fit in a minifigs hand going to be specified within the
> minifig.mpd, or separately? What about hair, hats?
Well, hair goes under the category "Hat". It may sound a little strange, but
that's the way it has to be. Like I said:
0 FILE Head
0 Name: Head
0 [This Object]
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3626bp01.dat
0 [Child Objects]
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Hat
0
0 FILE Hat
0 Name: Hat
0 [This Object]
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3624.dat
0 [Child Objects]
0
And a tool or a weapon or a briefcase is of course a child object to one of the
hands. Whatever a minifig holds in its hands, it has to have the same objectname
extension. I think RightHandTool would do, or maybe something shorter.
We also have footwear that are child objects to legs.
The animation program will rebuild the hierarchy as soon as it reaches a
template, so that's no problem even if we animate something that never has been
defined before. The only problem is if there are different naming conventions in
the same animation scene. Then the commands won't be able to touch the object.
The cool thing is that LDA already can change hats on a minifig after it is
created (or later, imported)
Minifig01.Hat.FileName = 6093.dat
Minifig01.Hat.Color = 14
and the black Police hat has turned into long, lightblonde hair.
Thus, we are not forced to make hundreds of minifig templates unless we feel
like doing so.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation [DAT]
|
| (...) Yes, this is exactly what I suggest in my tutorial on how to model stuff. Then, in test1.mpd, you can rotate block1, and it will rotate all of its children as well! And you *should* rotate block1 so that you can see if you got its rotation (...) (19 years ago, 29-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
| (...) Yes, this is what Anders was trying to get me to understand. The MPD framework provides a name visibility barrier (scope). I still say that LDraw type 1 lines are used to specify hierarchy. The <file> names within the MPD can be used to (...) (19 years ago, 27-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
30 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
|
|
|
|
