Subject:
|
Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:01:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2838 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Anders Isaksson wrote:
<snip>
> > I just don't think it is the best solution. I see a possible
> > solution that could help animation, *and* building instructions:
> > named part instances. Can you see my point?
>
> Yes of course! I was just trying to point to the possibilities already
> available in the existing file formats. I do believe a new format would be
> much more effective, but the time frame for actually agreeing on a new file
> format is indefinite...
Ah, yes.... but only if you leave it to a committee! LOL! As the who has,
invented the most meta-commands (I know, no LPub experience), I just create what
I need, and tell people about them. No one has complained yet.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
| (...) Except me. ;) Seriously, this is why I butt into animation discussions. I care so much I want other people to at least come up with something that will survive time. I don't want someone to create something that will be incompatible with what (...) (19 years ago, 29-Oct-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thoughts on File Format for LDraw Animation
|
| (...) Yes, but you can give the 'files' any name you want inside the MPD. They don't *have* to match the part name outside of the MPD. So you *can* get named parts inside an MPD (with the help of a suitable 'post-processing' program). I certainly (...) (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
|
|
|
|
