To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 2267
2266  |  2268
Subject: 
Re: Parts Database (Was: Idea: ... Lego piece naming convention?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:29:18 GMT
Viewed: 
1974 times
  
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:43:25 GMT, Tore Eriksson
<tore.eriksson@mbox325.swipnet.se> wrote:

Isn't
there any way we could make .DAT files for not yet rendered parts, too? Just
for database purposes? The first idea that comes to me is to store them in the
\Parts directory. That would be good in one way: when the [part] is rendered, the
file will automatically be replaced. But, of course,
there are many drawbacks. Anyone got a better suggestion?

Creating shell .DAT files is a simple way to record information for parts
which haven't been created for LDraw.  I wouldn't include these shell files
in the L-CAD parts updates, but they would be useful for building a
parts-base.

I feel more and more for a Total Update of all the \Parts directory. This
could take all the summer vacations we have, and make some terrible threads
everywhere in Lugnet.

I mean, we could add CATEGORY and KEYWORDS lines for all

That would be awesome.  And insert all those missing "Author: James
Jessiman" credits.

Why not add some new meta-commands?
Either:
0 DEAFULTS COLOUR=15 ZOOM=150 (or 1.5)
Or, maybe better::
0 DEFAULT COLOUR 15
0 DEFAULT ZOOM 1.5
Of course, this would only apply in databases where no other values are set.
...

In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2189>, Sproaticus outlined an idea for
a meta-command similar to your DEFAULT idea.  I think I prefer his approach
of carrying over the syntax from the command-line options.  It's still a
good idea.

In fact, most parts of the database could be hosted in the parts' .DAT files -

It could be, but how much data do we want to insert into the multitude of
part files?  Especially if the information isn't useful in LDraw-related
tools.  It would make more sense to have a single storage location for this
information.

(I snipped the rest of Tore's message, it looks like he had a formatting
accident on the info-highway ;)

Steve



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Parts Database (Was: Idea: ... Lego piece naming convention?)
 
(...) How about a 0 IMAGE meta-command, for those parts which are not-yet coded? That way, we could supply a URL for all parts, and the image could come from any source. Of course, it might make more sense to have that particular item as a column in (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Parts Database (Was: Idea: ... Lego piece naming convention?)  [DAT]
 
Ah, yet another promising database variant! This is great, and fast! I only see one problem with it is it only includes official LDraw elements. Isn't there any way we could make .DAT files for not yet rendered parts, too? Just for database (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)

80 Messages in This Thread:































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR