Subject:
|
Developing LDBoxer Again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:41:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
23183 times
|
| |
|
|
After seven years of thinking and hesitating, I have decided to improve my
utility progam LDBoxer. There are lots of room for improvements, but to begin
with, I will fix a couple of bugs I have discovered.
Then I will focus on making two new categories of boxed parts:
* Parts with studs on top but the rest boxed.
* Parts with bottom details but without studs.
I really don't like the idea of making more subdirectiories, so while in the
process of developing the new standard, I have decided to, at least temporarily
name the new files as follows:
Parts\B\B3001.dat - version with boxed bottom but with studs
Parts\B\T3001.dat - version with bottom details but without studs
Already used names:
Parts\3001.dat - original and official, non-boxed version
Parts\B\3001.dat - fully boxed version
Parts\B\3001.nfo - Information file telling which areas are covering other parts
/ need to be covered to be boxed.
To avoid potential problems, I have decided to use T (for Top) instead of S (for
Stud). There are already files in the Parts folder beginning with an S (sticker
part files), plus we already use S\ as sub-part/sub-model directories. With this
approach, I'm afraid unofficial or future official files beginning with B or T
located in the Parts folder may cause unpredictable results. Another solution,
possible more fool proof, could be to create two more folders:
Parts\B\B\
Parts\B\T\
But this means two new subfolders...
There are lots of other areas where improvements can be made, like a syntax for
grouping studs, top and bottom areas. 3811.nfo is for example 17kb, one line for
each of the 2304 studs. Something like "StudGroup -310 0 -310 310 0 310" or so,
I don't know. And so far, I am focusing on the Level A simplification, which
means parts that should be completely safe to replace with boxes without any
visual difference. Maybe an option to make LDSwitch cases, either in multiple
switches or moved into one area of the model file? But for now, I wish to have
some input on what you think of my thoughts on the naming conventions. In fact,
I have thought about this for years, but haven't found any solution I feel
perfectly satisfied with, so if you have any better idea, I'm all ears.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | LDBoxer Available at SourceForge
|
| (...) I've played around a little with my old LDBoxer program. The new version auto-boxes a lot more safe-to-box parts than previous versions. Added support for parts without studs and parts without bottom details (URL) Replace button is made (...) (14 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Developing LDBoxer Again
|
| (...) --snip-- (...) This sounds like an excellent development. I had to hand alter some of my Boxer'd MOCs to get the bottom detailing back in. And I think I forgot some. Tim (14 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
