 | | Re: MPD spec —Roland Melkert
|
| | | I was wondering, didn't see it discussed in the text, is it permitted / custom to have ldraw files in a mpd file reference other mpd files? If so is the first part in the file used or is there some naming convention pointing to the correctsubpart (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) This is a very good question, and is even more important with the migration to a single filename suffix (.LDR). What happens when your type-1 line refers to a LDR that happens to be a multi-part dat? Cheers, - jsproat (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | (...) I don't know about the other parsers, but as far as LDView is concerned an LDraw file is an LDraw file is an LDraw file. It makes no distinctions between ldr files, dat files, and mpd files. If it sees a 0 FILE command, it starts its MPD (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I have ldr files with up to 4 levels of nested sub files, and LDview, L3Lab, and MLCad all appear to render them fine. ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) MPD files should not be named ".ldr" (or ".dat")! Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) I wasn't here for the .ldr extension discussions, so this may well have already been covered, but why not ".ldr"? It seems to me that any tool with built-in support for the .ldr extension should also support the MPD format. And the MPD format (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) Because we ought to differentiate between files that can be processed directly by LDraw, and those which have to be filtered through another tool (a MPD splitter) before LDraw can render them. If we decide to scrap LDraw compatibility, this is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) These are good points. Perhaps we should define the spec with two levels: "strict MPD" and "expanded MPD". Strict MPD would require everything necessary to render files with ldraw: - All names on FILE statements follow the DOS filenaming (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) [...] That looks like the right solution. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Or perhaps MPD and LD2. We have discussed the time for a new, not LDraw compatible standard years ago. I don't like the idea of an "almost LDraw compatible" standard. Isn't it better to go all the way with maybe type 6, 7, 8... commands than (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Good point. I like the idea of a clearly defined new version of the file format. This would be a good point also to rename multi-part files in the second version to something relating to .LDR - perhaps .MPL could make the distinction? -Tim (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I can appreciate your concern. For now, let me develop a document that treats the two specs as variations. If you're unhappy with my results, we could easily rework it into two totally separate standards. BUT, IMO, a new standard that breaks (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd like to weigh in on this issue. I like using the .ldr extension for everything. I also like being able to refer to another MPD file (with the .ldr extension) from within an MPD file. I also like being able to call the the first subfile the (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Good question. Different programs have more (or less) success at handling this. L3Lab seems to have no trouble with it. LDLite usually does ok, but not always (unfortunately, I don't have an example). (...) There's no special syntax, the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | (...) I think so, too. I see MPD files almost like ZIP files. I know that there are differences, like inside WinZip you can generally only view standalone files without unzipping them first. (The reason I reignited this thread was I wanted to make (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) Me too. And originally, you actually had to split a MPD file before you could view the contents. I would prefer that we stick to this way of treating MPD files as if they are splitted/unpacked before their content is processed. (...) That is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I disagree with this. Or, if we keep this approach for MPD, I'll want another standard language extension for embedding "macros" in LDraw files. I tend to view (and use) FILEs in MPD files as "subroutines", and I'd prefer they were designed to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) Have you considered that that means that MPD files will no longer be able to be rendered by LDraw? (or have I overlooked something?) (...) Yes, but it is a single-level subroutine system like in C. (I complain about it in C, but that is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) No, I hadn't. I was taking the view that MPD files are not compatible with LDraw, and I was not too concerned with making them 'more compatible'. See my other recent message for a suggested way to standardize both "LDraw-ready" and "never (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MPD spec —Roland Melkert
|
| | | | I think I am going to load referenced subparts only and use the first one of recursive mpd files, ignoring the rest for now for LD4DModeler's MPD support. Roland. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
