 | | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
Ahui Herrera wrote... (...) I think we have been talking past each other, especially about what a submodel is, and when it is a submodel. You seem to think of a submodel as being a certain file, and always call it submodel no matter it is rendered (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
(...) It would be a solution. Basically in the end I would have 2 set of files: Set 1: for distribution model.mpd (which is made of) complete.ldr submodel1.ldr submodel2.ldr Note that ALL of these files would have their steps IN THEM! So that a user (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
LeoCad can do that sort of thing - but not very straightforward, here is the procedure: - Rename your sub-model as .dat (LeoCad doesn't properly support .dat extension) - Open it with Leocad - Select all parts (edit/select all) and Copy (Ctrl-C) - (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
(...) Would that solve all your problems? You always want to ignore steps in submodels when rendering main model? Do you render submodels separately for BI ? /Lars (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
(...) I start off by making one ldraw model first. Usually it has no steps and parts are in NO particular order. Once I got the model done, I go back and begin to figure out what sections should be sub-models if any. At this point I begin to build (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
(...) But don't you make separate building instructions for the submodels ? The way stepclock works today isn't well suited for models containing submodels with steps. If a model includes a submodel in step 3 it will include step 1-3 of the submodel (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
(...) This works BUT ONLY if you are NOT doing building instructions of the submodels as well? I'm making builing instructions for the submodels as well so this option is NOT an option for me. =( AHui (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: disabling BFC (was "Head w/ Headset Over Brown Hair")
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) In the coming version of L3Lab I have added a check to see if the model contains any linetype 2, 3, 4 or 5. If so, the "model" is assumed to be a part/primitive, and BFC is disabled. (BFC is of course enabled for a (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
Ahui Herrera wrote... (...) Or simply ALWAYS ONLY put stepclock in the main model ? Since L3P doesn't walk the model/part tree (POV does) it doesn't make much sense putting stepclocks in submodels. /Lars (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
(...) I think I would, but just having the choice between only the first 20 entries (default) and all the entries (optional) would be helpful. Jacob (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | L3P and/or L3PAO
|
|
Not sure which author would be willing to do this if any? Currenlty L3P/L3PAO when using the -sc (stepclock) function will allow a user to render the model by the number of steps (each step = 1 image) in your .ldr file. This is a WONDERFUL tool but (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: ** QUAD2DAT ** version 0.9.4 released **
|
|
(...) Hi all, I've noticed that the inserted pictures is mirrored, left is right and vice versa. Does this makes all the with this program done parts unusable? CU Bernd PS: the number of parts are exploding with this program (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
(...) Depends - do you want to be able to page to the *next* 20 or so entries? Without paging, it'd be very easy to implement. Steve (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
(...) Looks good. Would it be difficult to limit the list to the first 20 or so entries? Jacob (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
(...) That looks great, Steve, thanks. I really think this will help to maintain author perspective, and help some reviewers to target the oldest files. Chris (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
(...) Looks good. I dont think the subfile issue is all that important, as I only ever review subfiles when required by a superfile I'm reviewing - the superfile will tell me if the subfiles need certifying anyway, and I can get to them easily from (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
Hello Steve, Looks very good... The easiest solution would be to add an 'Date of first submission' field in the part table. Because this field didn't exists so far the start value should be the date of the last action on a part. Then a parts thats (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
Here's a first attempt: (URL). This page excludes Certified! and Held files, and sorts by most-recent-action-date, oldest to newest. It does not take superfile-subfile relations into account. Take a look, and let me know what you think. One down (...) (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Self-Certification in parts tracker
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I don't think they should be included (as a reviewer). (...) I think so. (...) :-) Jacob (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 30375cs0.dat, "MiniBot SW Battle Droid (complete)"
|
|
(...) OK, I'll do it when I can. Steve (22 years ago, 13-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
