Subject:
|
Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:53:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1084 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> That's true. There should be a gradual shift in naming to 'LCAD Organization'
> rather than LDraw.org, etc [1].
There isn't a very formal organization right now, so this shift is not
a huge step and should happen as soon as possible.
> Technical Support - Not 'tech support' as a lot of companies have, as in
> dedicated operators to answer email, phone, etc. But sort of a head of a
> Technical Area - which provides help on the LDraw.org site and in the CAD
> discussion groups. This is an important side of the relations to the 'consumer'
> of LCAD.
You mean a more formal support ? I think that any questions posted to
the lugnet.cad.* groups is very well answered (and faster than any
company's support).
> So - how will these semi-official positions be turned into official ones, and
> who will jump on board (if anyone wants to). Does anyone have objections to the
> current semi-official positions and for what reasons? Does anyone want to
> comment on the ideas presented here and how this is being handled and provide
> input?
I think that the parts library administrator job should be split in
more positions, we already agreed that the current voting process is
flawed and a lot of work for a single person. I'd rather have a comitee
that approves parts directly, for example: when a part is marked as
"finished" in the parts tracker, regular users can add comments to the
part and after a certain period (1 month ?), the parts administrators
will decide if the part should be included by an "internal voting".
That way regular users can still participate in the process (by adding
comments) but we avoid the problem of people voting "yes" just because
they want the part so badly that they will accept a mockup and people
that vote only based on the website pictures.
If we have a new file format for parts or models (see below) then we
could also have a file format group.
> > Let's face it, the current file format is not friendly to 3D hardware
> > and sooner or later we will want to change to something better. For
> > example: we still use vectors instead of textures to draw patterns, if
> > we were using textures we would have many more patterned parts available
> > right now (and they would be rendered faster too).
>
> A la Artemis? I've been pushing that at random for quite some time now. I'd be
> elated if the programmers of the newer Windows stuff got together and designed a
> new format and a new editor :D
That sentence was referring to the parts file format, I didn't want to
sound rude or step on anyones toes so I tried to keep the message short.
Artemis is also a very strong point and there's no way to implement it
with the current file format (unless we add a dozen meta-statements).
My idea would be to have 2 file formats, one for parts and another for
models. That way we can have the parts optimized for faster rendering
and the model files will be able to have other types of information.
If you have some free time then take a look at this file: (900 Kb).
It's an example of a very simple animation done with LeoCAD (without any
external programs) that cannot be saved in LDraw format because it is
very limited. If you have LeoCAD installed you can download the source
file at http://gerf.org/~leo/anim.lcd (10 Kb), press the "play" button
to see it.
The model is very simple (a car moving) but it's very easy to do an
animation like this, you just have to set the start and end positions
and the program calculates the intermediate information.
<SHAMELESS PLUG>
Currently the program that is closer to what Artemis proposes is
LeoCAD, it allows you to have a part appear in different places in each
step (no sub-steps yet but it's on my todo list). If you should check it
out I'm sure you won't be disappointed.
</SHAMELESS PLUG>
Now answering your question: I've volunteered in the past to
participate in a new CAD project but nobody replied so I'll keep working
slowly to add the Artemis ideas to LeoCAD.
> [1] I did a quick check for LCAD-domain names, and .org and .com are taken, but
> .net is not. If LCAD were to get a domain, we could go for a variant of that
> which would not be taken. (Lcad-organization.com, Lcad-org.com/net/org,
> L-cad.org)
l-cad.org is my favorite and it's available.
Leonardo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
| "Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A3B8FF8.95F0A8....com.br... (...) Organization' (...) Ok. Lets figure out if we are going to make the move (LDraw vs LCAD in the name vote) and act on that. This doesn't necessarily (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
| "Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A3A7869.6F41C7....com.br... (...) That's true. There should be a gradual shift in naming to 'LCAD Organization' rather than LDraw.org, etc [1]. Eventually LCAD *will* change to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
45 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
|
|
|
|
