|
|
 | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
| (...) this is what I did in the end. nontheless I consider this a bug worth reporting and subsequently sort out the ldr-dat mess we are currently in ;-) w. (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
