 | | Re: Updating other persons parts?
|
|
[XFUT lugnet.cad.dev] (...) As long as you've tried to make contact, and not gotten a response, go ahead and make your changes. Steve (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Beginner's tutorial to programming LDraw utilities (Delphi Edition)
|
|
(...) Very good idea. :) (...) Very nice. You might want to include a short description of what IniFile.ReadString does, especially the third parameter. For myself, I'd rather include a bozo-value (like '%%NOTFOUND%%' or '') as the default value for (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to 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: New Plugin for LDDesignPad
|
|
After some more extensive testing, I've found this plugin to not work the way it was intended. It will still work for some files and for single sided, non-hollow "parts" but otherwise it will not produced adequate results. Oh well, I guess I (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Beginner's tutorial to programming LDraw utilities (Delphi Edition)
|
|
I'm planning to make a tutorial on the subject mentioned above. There is a lot of code that could be recycled and a lot of wheels that shouldn't be reinvented all the time by new programmers. Step One is about making your program find the path to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
