Subject:
|
Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:02:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
602 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Steve,
I don't know what happened to the source code of Ldraw and Ledit?
LDraw and Ledit are the only programs that are limited to the 8.3 scheme
(perhaps one or two old tools too). As far as I know there are easy to use
and easy to implement source routines that makes it possible for old
programs to read long filenames (I know it for Pascal...).
- Updating LDRAW and LEdit a little - Perhaps this would be a way?
Just a thought...
Greetings,
Carsten Schmitz
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:vv6pussgn1g9cg9c7lpur6erpdk6ua3jlr@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, under the subject "Re: 3626b101.dat - Minifig • Head
> - SW Grim/Determined w/ Eyebrows (Luke-1999) pattern", Franklin W. Cain
> wrote:
>
> > Here's the minifig head from all the '99 Star Wars sets
> > with Luke Skywalker.
> >
> > Since MS-DOS limits filenames to just 8 characters,
> > I deleted the "p" so as to keep the "p-"-numbering scheme consistent
> > ("P"-numbers of "p101" and above are for Star Wars patterns).
>
> This is a problem. This potentially blows the whole approach to numbering
> patterned parts.
>
> And it's going to be more of a problem in the future, as we get more blank
> parts with ID numbers of 5 digits (or more).
>
> For now, I think we need to stick with 2-digit pattern IDs for these
> pieces. Read on, and I'll outline why I think that's the way to proceed.
>
> Pattern part numbers are made from three elements: the base number, the
> 'p', and a unique 2 (or 3) digit pattern number.
>
> The base number and the constant 'p' are fairly critical to this approach,
> assuming we want to be able to relate plain bricks to their patterned
> counterparts. So we can't drop or change the base number + 'p'.
>
> And, as Franklin points out, we have to stick to 8+3 DOS filenames. So
> keeping all three elements is not an option.
>
> If we change the pattern numbers for these face-pieces, that blows the
> emerging organization of pattern IDs. That would be unfortunate, but not
> as serious as the other possible solutions. Especially since there are • few
> face-pieces right now.
>
> Longer term, we are going to need a different, better solution for this.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
> Steve
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
| (...) That is not the real problem, there are still operating systems in use that simply don't support long filenames. We are a world wide community with participants from regions that are less wealthy then yours, and these might still use machines (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Patterned Parts Numbering
|
| In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, under the subject "Re: 3626b101.dat - Minifig Head (...) This is a problem. This potentially blows the whole approach to numbering patterned parts. And it's going to be more of a problem in the future, as we get more blank (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
25 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
|
|
|
|
