Subject:
|
LDBoxer Available at SourceForge
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:07:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
23717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> 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
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
http://ldrawboxer.sourceforge.net/
The Replace button is made invisible. Instead, parts will be automatically
replaced when the AutoCheck button is clicked. Changes are not saved to the
opened model file until Save button is clicked though.
The new version boxes parts that are covered by already boxed parts.
Todo: Can't handle 0x0... color codes, need to look over range of transparent
colors.
/Tore
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Developing LDBoxer Again
|
| 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 (...) (14 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
