 | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Steve Bliss
|
| | | 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)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Dean Earley
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Dean Earley
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dean Earley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Tim David
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Surely the extension is entirely to identify the type of file, otherwise they would be irrelevant? While I understand that .dat is a widely used extension it would be foolish if any change was to .ldr (for parts), another extension would make (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | | | --SNIP-- (...) IMO the best solution would be to have a magic number at the start of the parts. eg. 0 LDP or something. That way the 'partness' of each part would be quicly verified merely be reading the first five bytes of the file regardless of (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Willy Tschager
|
| | | | 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 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) What can I say? Tim has always been focused sharply on models. Although he used "model" extensively throughout that post, any implication of having separate definitions of "part" vs "model" as file-types is inaccurate. (...) That was entirely (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | (...) I think Tim meant LDraw files distinctive from other programs' .DAT files. Also from (URL) is problematic because its an ambiguous file format, many different programs use it. To identify more with LDraw, we chose LDR." Anyway, as Travis (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
