 | | Re: LSC - current status?
|
|
(...) No work is being done on this at the moment. I think I may be expected to submit an updated draft standard to the LSC on this topic. I will be quite busy in January and February (change of country+job), so it may take some time before I get (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jan-06, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC - current status?
|
|
(...) Steve, Tore, Lars, Orion ... any? w. (19 years ago, 29-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Art of Illusion
|
|
(...) Any news in this matter? I have been using AOI for a few years now and it's now a very nice and competent software, latest version 2.2 is impressive. :) A good and growing AOI forum: (URL) (19 years ago, 30-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw to Bricklink shopping list converter
|
|
(...) Very cool. I like to see MPD support, if possible. -Orion (19 years ago, 26-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Ldraw to Bricklink shopping list converter
|
|
Hi, want to quickly search Bricklink for parts in your Ldraw creation? check (URL): just upload your Ldraw file, and you'll get a complete list of links to Bricklink search pages. Let me know how you like this tool, and make sure you try the MLCad (...) (19 years ago, 26-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
--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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Scorpion
|
|
(...) I just met with Chris Dee who is here in New Jersey on a biz trip. He just showed me his render of the Scorpion! I am so impressed! There is hardly another part as hard to make as the Scorpion. He did a fine job. Thank you so much. Lego Fans (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
