 | | Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Is there any way to reverse the inlining to the original file (lossless outlining, I guess it would be) using the comment that the inlining function writes? Does the matrix math work in this direction? Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Outlining can only be done with manual intervention, because there's no final delimiter on the inlined code. So the human has to select the code to outline. I *think* the matrix math can be reversed, but I'm not sure. I don't know if there is (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I almost didn't read that. :-, But a cut and paste won't necessarily restore the origin of the sub-model, will it? My main reason for using sub-models is to place the origin in a weird spot, usually for rotation purposes. I agree that (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) That was my point exactly: the inline operation applies the transform information from the reference statement on to each of the inlined statements. So cut and paste can only move the modified lines into a file with the same name. (...) That's (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Sure! But what kind of support? Aside from "Open Subfile", I mean. (...) :-D Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Well, you can currently edit MPD files -- if you have LDLite hooked up as the viewer, it deals with the MPD issues. Hmmm. I haven't played around with this very much, I should do so. But I was thinking of a multi-window MPD editor, that would (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
The matrix math will not always invert, although if the matrix is a pure rotation (with no scaling or shears) the transpose of the matrix is the inverse. A better solution would be for the inliner to apply a start and a stop tag for each inlined (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Adding a closing tag (and unique ID) is a good idea, and something that should have been done from the start. It would solve the problem of identifying the chunk of code to reverse out, and restoring the original referencing file would be (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <375bc53d.299725817@...et.com>... (...) In which case MPD would be better anyway. (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress)
|
|
(...) Agreed completely. For serious file-sharing, MPD is way better than inlining. Steve (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
