 | | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Hmm, I thought I killed that "feature". I'll look into it as I find time to finish up LDDP 2.1 -Orion (15 years ago, 11-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) I mostly agree with this policy. (...) There is nothing strange in the routines, it is the standard format used to represent very large or very small numbers in a limited number of digits. Actually since values never get very large in LDraw (...) (15 years ago, 11-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) My suggestion would be to read numbers in that notation but never write them. I'm not sure why LDDP would write them that way (it would require some strange output routines) but if one thing writes them then it's best to read them. Tim (15 years ago, 11-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) I think it should be forbidden in official files as the benefit is very small and it is not good human readable. Benefit would be smaller filesize, as 0.0004 (6 characters) has more characters than 4E-4 (4 characters). Against could be 0.4 (3 (...) (15 years ago, 10-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Such notation is not noted in any specs.. neither allowed or forbidden. At least, I can't find such. Maybe we should bring this up at LSC at some point? (FWIW I sent this in yesterday but it seems the server ate the message.. resending it) (...) (15 years ago, 9-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Such notation is not noted in any specs.. neither allowed or forbidden. At least, I can't find such. Maybe we should bring this up at LSC at some point? -Santeri (15 years ago, 9-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | number notation in official parts
|
|
If I rotate a part in LDDP the result may look like this: 1 16 4E-15 4 -20 0 0 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 stud4.dat This can be read by LDView and MLCad as a valid number. Is such notation allowed in official parts? It is nowhere explicit allowed or (...) (15 years ago, 8-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDSwitch Sample #1: Do/Undo [DAT]
|
|
Don't know if you prefer to make input here or at SourceForge, so I crosspost. Please give feedback where you like, here or at SF. Here's the first sample LDraw code snippet. Set the value of the variable Rev028_Changes to Do or Undo, run the (...) (15 years ago, 23-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDSwitch Project on SourceForge
|
|
(...) I've just registered myself and my first project at SourceForge: (URL) to join or just input! /Tore (15 years ago, 23-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDSwitch?
|
|
Is the name/keyword/META-command LDSwitch/!LDSWITCH free to use or is it taken? I think it's not taken (in the LCad context), so I wish to claim it if noone protests. /Tore (15 years ago, 23-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Undo/Redo Information META Tags? Or Options Buttons?
|
|
(...) And I'm not sure this would be the optimal solution either. This options thing is more like a case switch than a series of if statements. (...) Thanks for your input, Kevin. I am looking for a friendly solution that won't output any code that (...) (15 years ago, 19-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Undo/Redo Information META Tags? Or Options Buttons? [DAT]
|
|
(...) Well, you could easily do the above using the C preprocessor and #ifdefs, but that would be outside any LCAD application (and make the original file hard to work with in any modeler). #ifdef LDBOXTER_LEVEL_D /* crude simplification */ 1 15 0 (...) (15 years ago, 19-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Undo/Redo Information META Tags? Or Options Buttons? [DAT]
|
|
I've been thinking hoe nice it would be if there was some kind of system of tags that enabled the user to store undo and redo information in a model after the model building application is closed. Now, there are a great number of LCAD apps of which (...) (15 years ago, 19-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Defining LED Colors in LDConfig?
|
|
I've been thinking about that talk of limiting the colour definitions in LDConfig.ldr to part colours with a few expectations, and I agree with that. But I wish to throw in an idea that I don't even believe in myself but yet want to air. Is it (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Names for Monorail Parts
|
|
(...) It makes more sense for "Monorail" to be a valid CATEGORY than some of the existing ones, so I added it a while ago. The definitive list is at (URL) Chris (15 years ago, 21-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: XP File Search Refuses To Search .LDR Files!
|
|
(...) I'm using WinGrep ((URL) and/or Copernic Desktop Search ((URL) for local searching, and have turned off all Windows indexing. Copernic is awfully fast (but it creates huge indexes), while WinGrep is better (IMO) for source code searches. The (...) (15 years ago, 22-Dec-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Parts Path
|
|
(...) This is a nice tip, thank you. Yes, I agree that it would be nice to be able to arbitrarily enable/disable/set/configure the paths LDraw (ok, maybe not ldraw.exe and ledit.exe per se) uses to search for parts. Mike (15 years ago, 22-Dec-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: XP File Search Refuses To Search .LDR Files!
|
|
(...) This is true in XP as well if you have "Windows Desktop Search" (or something similar) installed. I wish I could disable *that*. (15 years ago, 22-Dec-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: XP File Search Refuses To Search .LDR Files!
|
|
(...) Yeah, and the "improvements" in Vista and Windows 7 are, as far as I'm concerned, even worse. Also, I'm not sure how XP behaves, but in Vista/Windows 7 if you have indexing turned on and search new files, it will silently not return any (...) (15 years ago, 21-Dec-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: XP File Search Refuses To Search .LDR Files!
|
|
(...) Thanks, Travis, I have already managed to chase that annoying dog away, it was just to right-click on him or so. Maybe I'll turn that whole assistant off, too. Isn't it strange that in the efforts of making the search faster and easier, they (...) (15 years ago, 21-Dec-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
