 | | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GCtx8C.8C3@lugnet.com... (...) Cool. I'd prefer the primary file extension to reflect the 'LDraw' name - 'ldr.' Some further discussion may be in order about DAT files having more than (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
Sorry it took so long for me to get this back. I scoured my sources and all of the Internet databases I know of, and as far as I can tell, you are free and clear on all of these extensions: .ldr .ldl .lds .mpd .mlc I wonder if someone didn't do this (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Shortcuts (was: Unofficial Update Progress)
|
|
(...) Instead of the pattern file naming style, use the shortcut/composite part naming style - use a C instead of a P. Also, since the torso is the central part of the shortcut, use 973 as the base number. Likewise, use the pattern number as the (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
Will do...look for a post tomorrow. Matt (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GCsEHM.CD5@lugnet.com... (...) Go for it, that would be cool! Thanks! -Tim (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
Tim, I have a listing of thousands of file name extensions available to me. I will search it tonight and let you all know tomorrow if the ideas you all are talking about have been used before, if you would like. LMK, Matt (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:GCsCrG.8n4@lugnet.com... (...) Yep, here's a few reasons: If .ldr is the standard file, people will mentally associate the editors - MLCad, LeoCAD, BrikDraw3D - viewers LDView, L3Lab - as (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Proposal
|
|
(...) Oh, and it would mangle it a lot more than that for DOS display... 3193~1.ldr --Bram Bram Lambrecht bram@cwru.edu (URL) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Tim (...) I like ldr too. (...) to (...) I use win2k here at work, I'll try on winme when I get home. I think you need to have the option to show file extensions enabled if you're using windows explorer, otherwise you can rename from a DOS (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Proposal
|
|
Erik Olson (...) Turn off that annoying "Hide extensions of known file types" option in Folder Options (or something similar) Windows 95/98/etc doesn't seem to care how long file extensions are (*.html, for example), three letters is just the norm. (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Well to get back to 8.3 it only takes chopping off the last 2 chars, and Tim likes .LDR . How DO you give a file a 5 letter extension in Windows? I tried it (Win95 handy...) and it keeps a secret .dat extension after that too... I wanted to (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) I'm (...) part (...) in (...) Steve, I have in my possession several Complete Minifig Shortcuts, covering the first six Space groups (back when all astronauts were created equal). They are numbered as follows: 979 and 980 ... p90.dat (Classic (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think we should try to keep the 8.3 filename convention from DOS because of ldraw/ledit. We can just use mpd as someone suggested. (...) Sounds like an Apple guy talking :) Leonardo (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
How about .ldraw? Just thinking differently. (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I think a small script running "l3p -check" called from within the CVS commitinfo file would work great for this. (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I'll go look up the discussion. I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I think CVS would be a great way of distributing the parts. There's clearly some managment tools needed to help with organizing the submissions and reviews of new (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) What I'd really like to see, is these tools defaulting to something other than .dat when files are saved. I expect them to all still support .dat. What I'd really like to see is people publishing their files with an extension other than .dat. (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
"Jonathan Wilson" <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message news:3AF13FF5.28B262....com.au... (...) totally (...) all (...) available (...) OK, I see what you mean. It would still mean that Steve would have to then check to see if it really is a (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) You and Fredrik are both correct on this, of course. And most tools will accept any extension on files, so if you have a DAT model named whatever.foo, you can still render it in LDraw, LDLite or L3Lab (for example). Steve (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Yes. And I won't even commit to exactly which one would be released (probably the one I received more recently, because that works with authors sending several different versions of their parts as they fix them). Actually, I don't *think* this (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) I dont mean where there are 2 parts that are identical. I mean that if 2 different authors have both used, say, x123.dat for 2 totally different parts.. In that case, one of them will be renamed to something else anyway when it all becomes (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
"Jonathan Wilson" <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message news:3AF0F252.79A88B....com.au... (...) another part (...) them will (...) of them (...) That would be a bit confusing, and if any beginners loaded the unofficial parts (you just know it's (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think we should settle for mpd. Let's not bring another extention into this to cause even more confusion. One can always use .mpd on an LDraw file, even if it does not contain any "FILE" keywords, right? So there are no problems related to (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Does this mean that if there are 2 parts called x530.dat that only one of them will be released? I hope that you would have the sense to take the few minutes to assign one of them to an unused x number :) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:k3u0ftckudqbaaf...4ax.com... (...) attached (...) I've been a proponent of .ldr whenever it has come up. I like that, and the other extensions you propose. -Tim (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) How about these: ldr - LDraw (dat) files mpd - Multi-Part lDraw files ldl - files with LDLite language extensions lds - LDScript files mlc - files with MLCad language extensions Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Erg. The .DAT extension is pretty much needed by all tools in use. And the original tools are still used quite a bit, especially in cases where tool flexability is more important than a GUI. (i.e. I still use LEdit to model tank treads, since (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you could use .mpd Many of the tools already accept this extension, and I believe (correct me if I am wrong someone) that you can rename your model files, and any model files you download, to use this extension. Of course parts and (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Proposal
|
|
I've got a bit of a problem with the LDraw derived software. I love the tools I use. My problem is with the unfortunate choice of filename extension. When LDraw/LEdit were written, it didn't really matter much. However, nowadays file (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Argh, I remembered about those, and still didn't kill the old files. Thanks for pointing this out. Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Actually, much of the functionality is in the prototype. The major missing pieces are: 1. Unofficial/ad-hoc part downloading 2. Release packaging 3. Administrator override of author/reviewer functions (ie, the admin can perform any function) (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Watch out here, Franklin submitted the SW heads twice, once without the P and a three digit pattern number, then he resent them with the two letter pattern code. Maybe the non-P parts should be ignored? Dan (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
I got a question in email, and I thought the answer would be of general interest. The question: (...) The answer: In short, very loose form, the main workflow is: Process 1: Author uploads file -> Reviewers check out file -> Reviewers check/certify (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
Bravo! -Chuck (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
I am working on an 'unofficial update' page. Just to have a handle for it, I'm labeling it 'update 2001-01', although after update 2001-02, the unofficial update will go away, cease to exist, become as though it never was. Some things that I am (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Paul, I don't know if you saw earlier messages about the Part Tracker, but there was some discussion about whether or not we could use CVS as a backend to an automated system. What do you think? There are a number of features we need that (I (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) This "problem" seems to be quite familiar to a lot of us ;-) (...) (d) I looked at it, but it was practically only GUI stuff without the necessary functionality, and I'm not the right guy to comment on GUIs... (...) Yes, that would have been (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Right now, it's a monolithic project; there hasn't been any segmentation of tasks. That's mostly my fault; I haven't reviewed the progress Dan has made, so I can't say where there's a need for work. It's also an artifact of not having a good (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This sounds almost like communistic ideology: For the project to ultimately become open, it must first become more closed for a while! ;-) (...) That's undoubtedly an interesting idea. Fredrik (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
HeeHeee! I have great faith in Tim that one day LDraw will become an open project, but I don't think it has ever been one in the past! :) As soon as the parts library is opened up, I promise I'll check it all into Sourceforge.org, so one can use (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
