 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) 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: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) why not just say any of the following (':', '/' and '\') can be used as a delimiter, and it doesn't matter which you use - it's up to the program to translate any of those to the correct one for the OS? (...) defenitly! :) Dan (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
"Don Heyse" <dheyse@hotmail.spam....away.com> wrote in message news:H0FBpw.8Mv@lugnet.com... (...) The sbotaohe (smoothing based on the absence of hard edges) is definitely the way to do (near) perfect smoothing without radically changing the parts (...) (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'd prefer we say that local/absolute references are allowed, but provide guidelines to show that relative paths are usually better - easier to manage, easier to share, etc. (...) Yes, yes, and I'm guessing yes. (...) I think you are correct - (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) 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: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
"Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote in message news:3D4FC5B0.1010300@nbi.dk... (...) This doesn't have to be fixed because the visual effect wil be marginal in programs like ldraw.exe (that actually use optional lines for drawing) and it (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Auggh! Hey, it's not too late -- there is no official BFC spec. Yet. :> Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Right. Any "MPD splitter" program should include code to check that filenames and paths are valid, and either report missing paths, or create them, or ask the user before creating them, or provide options (ie, command line parameters) to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) If there aren't optional lines, the inside curve won't render correctly, when someone uses a transparent color. Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
(...) I tend to agree with Jacob, but if the big space dish were transparent, optional lines on the concave surface could actually be seen when viewing them through the convex side. However, I fiddled with this once upon a time and I think it adds (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
(...) > there are no optional lines. Shouldn't that be fixed at some point? (...) I disagree. No optional lines are needed on inside curves. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Smoothing on part level using edge lines
|
|
If you check out the big space dish (3961.dat) you can see the optional line algorithm fails because there are no optional lines. In my opinion this part is good. There is no need to fix this part because it will only get larger and slows down some (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Done. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) I am not sure about explicit drive references. Actually, I think we should limit it to _relative_ paths. We should also decide on a preferred - or maybe even fixed - directory name delimiter. I suppose that it should be "\", even though Unix (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I would even call it a bad thing to do. But then I have a habit of putting "FILE" meta-command in all my files, so maybe I should stop criticising and try to fix my own bad habits first. > It's very easy to overwrite the main file with if the (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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 don't know how ldglite and other parsers work, but I guess they don't create files with paths and all, but rather objects somewhere in RAM, with 'filenames' just as a property. But if you call the procedure SaveToFile(Path+FileName) to save (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Another thing I realised the other day is that in Australia, the opposite of clockwise is generally anti-clockwise rather than counter-clockwise, so the BFC CERTIFY should really be CW or ACW, but it's a bit late to worry about it now! ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) FWIW both the ldlite and l3 parsers in ldglite are OK with paths in an MPD file. Just make sure the path in the 0 FILE line matches the path on the type 1 line that pulls in the subfile. If they don't match it reports that it can't find the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
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
|
|
(...) Hmm. I don't remember if there was a lot of discussion about putting paths on the 0 FILE line. So I won't say for absolute sure that the program should allow them. I'd say any software that *thinks* it needs a directory, and crashes when it's (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Err, the entry for MPD in the glossary: (URL) here: (URL) is a bad link. Could you update the glossary to point to the new spec? Don (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) MPD Workshop cannot handle a reference to a non-existing directory, or rather, it does not create a folder if necessary. For example: (URL) line: 0 FILE s\41342s01.dat assumes that there already exists the folder 's\' in the target directory, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Good point. Should probably also add the following... - There shouldn't be multiple files with the same name. - paths are allowed, so are explicit drive references. But the capability should be use with restraint, since it can easily make it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) One addition that might be useful for people using the spec is to explicitly state that other than the first file being the main one, there is no implicit order to the remaining files. This is implied by the existing spec, but not actually (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
Great! One question: I think I've seen some MPD files with the extension .dat and named exactly the same as its main model sub-file. IMHO, it's a risky thing to do. It's very easy to overwrite the main file with if the mpd is named the same. (It (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I don't know if we ever agreed on it; I don't remember the discussion of it at all. But I included it in the page. (...) Oyez, oyez! Please read the new Multi-Part DAT (MPD) Language Extension specification at (URL). All comments, suggestions, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
