 | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) [...] 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
| |
