Subject:
|
Re: LCD - LDraw Connection Database - Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Feb 2002 23:49:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1506 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kiss Attila Csongor (KACS) writes:
> > Well I think we were talking more about how to actually implement
> > it. How it would actually work.
>
> I think there is some examples in the proposal too.
>
> > When you get into trying to model these things, I don't think this
> > is the type of thing we can store in either the .DAT file or some
> > new database. Alot of this stuff will need to be stored in the model
> > I think, and written up (or almost programmed) by the model designer.
> >
> > That means (unless I'm missing something) developing almost a whole
> > programming language for embeding in a model.
>
> Yes, I understand you! It would be a programming language based on and
> according to the LCD. It would be LMPL - LDraw Model Programming Language.
> How about that? :)
>
> But, I think we need to work out fine the LCD itself. And now we can keep it
> in mind the LCD must be prepared to be a base to LMPL. Hm, sounds great,
> isn't it?
I think the idea of having an LMPL separate from the LCD is definitely a
good idea. Not everyone is going to want to do animation or whatnot - I know
that I'm personally more interested in just having a good way to connect the
parts together.
At first glance, I'd say that the part-connection information could be
encoded into the part's .LDR file as has been suggested. The difficulty is
in figuring out all of the possible connections that someone might think of.
Really, I would say it's a matter of the size of the various portions of a
piece that determines how someone could snap them together, rather than just
the "intended purpose" of each connector (i.e., you can snap a technic pin
into the bottom of a brick, or snap a plate sideways into another plate's
studs). Looking at it this way, it seems more an issue of a new
functionality being built into the CAD programs, rather than into the .LDR
files for the parts. Encoding every possibly connection scheme for each
piece might get kind of large.
Perhaps this is mostly a collision-detection problem?
Whatever happens, I love this idea! I've been wishing for something like
this since starting LDraw.
Eric Pierce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LCD - Calling for work
|
| (...) OK, ladies, gentlemen and minifigs, so everybody is agreeing it is a good idea, what is more, it is already a group of good ideas, including LCD itself (by the way, LCD could stand for Lugnet.Cad.Dev, too! :) and the LMPL language, and so on. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LCD - LDraw Connection Database - Proposal
|
| (...) I think there is some examples in the proposal too. (...) Yes, I understand you! It would be a programming language based on and according to the LCD. It would be LMPL - LDraw Model Programming Language. How about that? :) But, I think we need (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-02, 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
|
|
|
|
