 | | Re: New Plugin for LDDesignPad
|
|
(...) Released for 20 minutes and I already found a major problem, concave portions of parts don't convert well. -Orion (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | New Plugin for LDDesignPad
|
|
I've completed my first plugin for LDDesignPad. It will take a file and BfC certify for CCW winding. There are a few limitations: 1.) It doesn't handle bad vertex sequences, so these need to be fixed prior to running. 2.) It won't add INVERTNEXT (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to 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
|
|
(...) 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: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names
|
|
(...) I would rather say that I had been lucky with the design of the program. I don't think I had to change much to make it work as you requested, but you can compare this and the previous version of the source code. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names
|
|
(...) Wow! That was fast! :) Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) 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: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names
|
|
(...) Okay. I have made that an option with the latest edition of my MPD splitter: (URL) Here is my list of how software can handle this, in order from least (...) Except for the option of prompting before creating a directory, I have implemented (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
