 | | Re: Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) (URL) on Win2000 SP4 w. (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) My best guess is at that time MS was trying to make things safe for old programs (although it seems senseless for them to have done this with Win32 apps). If you call the Win32 function GetLongPathName on the short path, it will give you the (...) (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) That was command line, (URL) the result with drag n drop> is similar. ROSCO (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) Yeah I know they can be included but it's usually a safe idea not to. When setting a standard I'd be wary of allowing anything that is commonly poorly interpreted (which I suspect the escaped characters are). Tim (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Well well, first advantage of downgrading to XP, I guess. Just to be sure, you did drag and drop into the "application", or did you write it in a command line? /Tore (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) (URL) Here's> the output on XP. ROSCO (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) Well, I made a small program in Delphi 7 that lists the command line parameters, drag and dropped a file named "LongFileName.dat" in it, and here is the surprising result: (URL) (Running on a Win98SE PC.) So I think long file names still has (...) (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) The only character either Linux or Mac OS X is allergic to is '/'. Spaces are perfectly acceptable under both. One need only take care that any paths fed to the shell are properly escaped. Ideally anybody writing shell scripts or system() (...) (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) With tongue slightly in cheek, I believe it is time to accept the technological advancements of 1984. If DOS wasn't obsolete the day it was written, it definitely was within a few years. DOS filenames tend to be inscrutable, and there just (...) (18 years ago, 2-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) First of all, I agree that we should avoid using space in filenames for all official stuff. It's just too problematic. However, that's not a reason to forbid the use of long filenames in general. The thing is, any program that doesn't support (...) (18 years ago, 1-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Testing long filenames was Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)?
|
|
(...) And sorry to reply to myself... Could people using older operating systems test this? I'm happy to maintain the status quo if there are problems but if no-one finds problems then I think we make the majority suffer for something that isn't (...) (18 years ago, 1-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure about 98 and its ilk but I've never had any problems with long filenames in XP for l3p (and possible other command lines although I can't remember any off hand). I would certainly recommend against using spaces in filenames as (...) (18 years ago, 1-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) It it really so? We still use renderers and utilities that have command line inputs, and I don't know but I have a strong feeling that long names may cause problems like "Unofficial" turs into "Unoffi~1" followed by path not found errors. And (...) (18 years ago, 1-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
--snip-- (...) Personally I'm against maintaining it. It forces us into strange naming conventions for something which probably affects no users of the software. Tim (18 years ago, 28-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Unofficial directory (with non-standard name lenght)? (Was: LDView 3.1 on Mac OS X!)
|
|
(...) So far, we have maintained the old DOS convention of max. 8 chars and no SPACE used in folder names. I realize that fewer and fewer programs and utils are made in DOS evironments, maybe I'm the only to still make quick 'n' dirty programs in (...) (18 years ago, 28-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fiber Optics module
|
|
Willy Tschager schrieb: (...) I own the set (URL) and I will see what I can do. cu mike (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Fiber Optics module
|
|
(...) hmm ... posted on "Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:40:17 GMT" ... it's never to late to reply ;-) yes, I confirm that the axle hole in 6637.dat - Electric Technic Fiber Optics Element (Official LCad update 99-01) is 2 ldu too high - beside many other (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Thanks! I enjoy recording models in LDraw after I've made them because the process of methodically disassembling and reassembling them for input is very different from the casual way I initially build them. It's just sort of fun to look at a (...) (18 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Ah yes, the trusty helmet mounted flashlight look. Too much glare for me. I prefer the sort of lighting delivered by the mid-afternoon sun, beaming down from high over the left shoulder. But that's a personal preference, I suppose. (...) Nice (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) My light is a directional light pointing in exactly the same direction as the camera. In LDView 3.1, you can actually override this with an undocumented command line option. I hope to have light direction (single directional light) as a new (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Yeah, your default settings tend to hide certain surface flaws. Your light source (where is it by the way?) and smooth shading are as effective as dim lighting and heavy makeup. Perhaps not the best thing for a parts designer to be using. But (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I have to wonder if I'm partially to blame. Perhaps the part author was using LDView (thumbnail is linked to bigger image, generated by LDView): (URL) Everything looks great there. --Travis (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I'm wondering if something can't be done for general fits between two or three parabolas (perhaps I'm best to start with one parabolas and two lines). I'm trying to think of things but unfortunately geometry is my weakest branch of (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) If you fix that one, perhaps you can take up the challenge of (URL) the wedge brick>. I don't think we ever solved that one properly for ldraw. Enjoy, Don (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Hi Don, That problem has bugged me for a while but I didn't realise there was such a simple solution to it. I imagine that something similar can be done where both edges are curves by setting up shells along the double curves. Now I'm off the (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I like the ship, and especially that you've done it up in LDraw on the Mac. Cool. I'll have to leave any other comments to the starwars and building experts though. What I really like about that particular cad picture is the way it highlights (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if I know what you mean here. But an importer will most likely create joints for all parts in the MPD. Otherwise it will be difficult to determine which to do and which ones not. (...) I'll see what I can add to help automate some (...) (18 years ago, 28-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
(...) Thank {you} if you implement it ;-) - I'd hate to do all that work over again. BTW if you're able to incorporate that function, it would be nice if you can merge individual submodels since more than 90% of mine are usually just angled sections (...) (18 years ago, 28-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
(...) If everything goes well, I'll expect the first beta in a couple of months. (...) Not as far I'm concerned. An actor describes the connections between an group of parts. You can then use any actor in an 'character'. And there is no coded limit (...) (18 years ago, 27-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
(...) This is just the kind of program I've been longing for since before I decided to MLCad all my mocs - it was actually one of the main motivations. Man, I'm looking forward to see it completed!! A couple of questions: Assuming that the bot is an (...) (18 years ago, 27-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
(...) Yes, After defining one or more actors, you can use them in animations whom will be rendered real time using openGL. While animating you can manipulate all defined joints in the actors using a tracker like editor. In this tracker you put (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
(...) Am I correct in understanding this lets you animate LDraw models in some limited way? If so, very good work getting it done so far. Does it output povray? Tim (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Finaly: I completed my new LDraw render engine
|
|
Just wanted to show you people that the LD4DModeler project is not dead, I'm still working on the succeeder and I'm happy to announce the first big step is done. I finished the basic 3D Engine and editors. I have put some screen dumps on my site. (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) Look fine in Mozilla 1.7.13 Roland (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
For anyone who's interested, here is the output from a more complicated model: (URL) chose pyramid for the test because it allowed me to take a screenshot of the entire page.) Notice that it doesn't show images for any parts that aren't recognized (...) (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) <snip>> Thanks in advance. (...) Looks great on my Treo 650 with PalmOne Blazer 4.0. Although the partslist images the edges show up white reather than black ans make the parts look a bit funky... (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) quickly; all the rest are still in the queue. Thanks a lot. --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
I found this via browsing the other day, and it is very useful. It doesn't have ALL browsers, but has most and has options for version number, resolution, flash, java, etc. (URL) (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
I found this via browsing the other day, and it is very useful. It doesn't have ALL browsers, but has most and has options for version number, resolution, flash, java, etc. Aaron (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Web browser compatibility testing request
|
|
(...) Thanks. It looks really bad in Lynx. Apparently Lynx doesn't like div elements (at least not when they have style information attached). Lynx also doesn't know the meaning of the tfoot element, which is a little more surprising. --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
