 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
"Travis Cobbs" <tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com> wrote in message news:H0Fopv.22s@lugnet.com... (...) line (...) part (...) larger (...) This (...) generate (...) color (...) program (...) extra (...) but (...) smoothing (...) than (...) something, (...) (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) :-( I have fixed my MPD splitter. The updated version will show up on: (URL) tonight (or early tomorrow). Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
(...) Reading the various replies to this, I've seen a number of good points, but I think that some degree of misunderstanding was also generated. I personally don't think optional lines are generally a good idea on the inside of curves, but it is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) I tend to disagree. Given that the whole point of MPD files is to allow LDraw files to be more portable across multiple machines, I think absolute paths should be disallowed. It doesn't make sense to me to allow absolute paths in a file format (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
(...) Wow... I never thought of that before. I've been designing parts without inside optional lines for years. Good gosh... I'm working on a door right now that has inside curves that can't be covered by primitives- and I need to go look at the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
