Subject:
|
Re: Question about the Future of LDraw CAD family.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:36:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1257 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Dwayne -
> Any reason that a group, could be set aside to develop just the CAD engine, and
> allow it to be used for loads of things?
No reason that I see, in fact, it just hasn't happened yet :-)
> I mean, the core engine programmers could develop the core parts of the
> program, and datastructure. And allow parts developers to develop parts.
Yup.
> This way the CAD package could be used for LOADS of other things. Including
> *gasp* a regular multipurpose CAD program.
Absolutely.
> Then again, it seems the only thing really being 'offically' developed, are
> Lego Parts, and maybe the connection database. But as it looks like LDraw
> itself is not being used much anymore (at least I have seen zero references to
> its use in current documents, nor heard of anyone using it). Perhaps, just the
> datafile format is all that needs developed. And thats mostly preserving it.
It's funny how with this post you've hit the nail on the head with my
current line of thinking. :-) Steve and I have been talking about a
structure for this very thing, I've been keeping Don Jessiman in the loop
via a few recent phone calls, and we're looking into options on when and
where to hold a meeting to do a couple things:
1) Formalize the LDraw nonprofit organization, so we have the authority for
future development projects like this
2) Set up a framework for working on official projects, maintaining the file
format, making necessary revisions, etc.
I've been really quiet about all of this lately because I'm very busy with
my ventures at BrickMedia, and with other projects of mine. All of which I
believe you guys will like :-)
Over the next few weeks, I'm going to talk to some people in the community
about such a meeting. I've already broken ground with making this happen,
but some elements are not cemented yet, so please bear with me. As soon as I
can, I will get the appropriate information out here for discussion.
> Ok, unless I missed my guess, mlCAD is not offically part of the LDraw.org
> project, but a private venture that happened to catch on as one of the better
> GUI interefaces. It does not REQUIRE at all the ldraw/ledit executables, which
> a true front end would.
Yes and no. You're right that MLCAD is not associated with LDraw.org, it's a
GUI interface for the file format and parts library. A very good one. Right
now, we have not begun to distribute the parts separate of the repackaged
original archive, LDraw027.exe.
Steve (who manages all of the parts) tells me this is an issue of creating a
license for them. I also think that if we were to distribute the official
LDraw.org library separate of LDraw027, we would need the consent of Don
Jessiman (executor of the James Jessiman estate), and we would also need to
develop guidelines to how that library can be used by third-party
applications (such as if there were an automatic download and installation,
they must refer to the LDraw system of tools properly, and reference
LDraw.org as the source of the files).
I would like to see all of this resolved in a meeting where we form a
nonprofit organization. I've run this by Don, and he's in concurrence with
these ideas, and wants to attend. This is all still on the drawing board,
and as soon as we have some concrete thoughts, we'll bring it here.
The reason I'm so intent on hosting an in-person meeting is this: I've
observed the LDraw project for 5 years, and been a major contributor for 4.
I've watched people discuss issues with fervor online, and then seen it
fizzle and die. Even when I took projects like this to private email lists,
it still was not very effective.
BUT - I've spent a lot of time in person with various LDraw contributors.
The CAD Summit hosted by LEGO Direct in New York (early 2001) was amazing,
with Steve, Michael Lachmann, Lars Hassing, Erik Olson, Leonardo Zide, and
myself present. We discussed a TON outside of our meetings with LEGO, and I
see the value of in-person interaction to actually getting stuff done. Since
then, I've talked with other contributors in person - Paul Gyugyi, Jaco van
der Molen, Jacob Sparre Andersen, Lars again this fall, well wishers at the
LEGO Company, and many more who I'm sure I'm forgetting. You just don't get
the same ground covered online, and I'm almost certain these projects won't
come out of online discussion alone.
> As it is, I see nothing that prevents anyone from saying, hey lets make a
> program that will read/write this dataformat, as that parts already been done,
> and we even have dos source to pull ideas for coding the GUI from. Leaving out
> any Lego parts and even selling it as their 'own' CAD system.
>
> Then again, there may be more to the James' orginal license than I have seen.
I don't believe anything prevents this. To me, this is OK, so long as James
is given the proper credit. I am not sure what Don's opinion on this is.
Steve is the keeper of the license, and he could better answer this.
> Not trying to stir up a fight or anything here, honestly want to see whats
> going on, and to make sure that the control over future development is truely
> kept in the hands of the people who will remain true the vision of James.
I see no reasons why your inquiries would stir up a fight. I'm glad you
asked :-) For the past month or more, I've been in conversations with Steve
Bliss, Jacob Sparre Andersen, Don Jessiman, and Larry Pieniazek (as a
community advisor) on how to go forward with LDraw and keep it ture to
James' vision. Don wants to see LDraw grow, and is extremely proud his son's
work has come this far. He is always trying to put himself in James' shoes
and think with his original vision. This is something we take very
seriously, and I'm glad Don is willing to discuss this with us.
> I am not sure if this has been discussed, and mlCAD sorta makes it redundant,
> but is there plans for a formal GUI version of LDraw/LEdit? one offically
> supported, and everything by this project?
I hope this happens, eventually. I think it can within the framework I want
to establish for future official LDraw developments. This is something else
I'm talking about with people, trying to get an idea of how this would
proceed, before bringing here. Of course, feel free to discuss this at will
here, while I talk with a few core volunteers for LDraw, both formally and
informally, about the future.
I had some good conversations with Jacob Sparre Andersen and Lars Hassing at
Lars' house in October. This kinda got the ball rolling for all of this, and
revived my desire to see LDraw.org formalize as a nonprofit. Since then, Don
and I have been conversing on the phone regularly, and his interest has
revived as well (we talked a lot about formal orgs and future developments
at BrickFest 2001). So, stuff is moving :-)
> A project like that, in a common open source languge (c/c++, heck even Java,
> thats another thing, anyone seen a Java based parts viewer? if not, that would
> be one nice program to write, for online parts browser... part of the update
> process, allow reviewes to rotate/stack new blocks for evaluation, etc).
> Would go a long way towards retaining control. Even if people grab a recent
> version add a few bells and whistles and release their own branch. There still
> would be the plain and simple, basic LDraw GUI to base a standard on.
I believe Jeremy Sproat was working on a Java LDraw viewer?
> Ok, rambled enough, I am still managing to read more and learn more about the
> history of this project, so if I am stirring the embers of a long dead
> argument, I apoligize, please just let me know, and nothing further will be
> said.
Dwayne, thanks for posting this. It's helped me confirm some of my thoughts
and discussions. Rest assured I've got many more thoughts coming down the
pipe, and so do the other core LDraw.org volunteers. :-)
Tim Courtney
LDraw.org
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question about the Future of LDraw CAD family.
|
| (...) Ok, got an even more general question. Any reason that a group, could be set aside to develop just the CAD engine, and allow it to be used for loads of things? I mean, the core engine programmers could develop the core parts of the program, (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
