 | | Re: JDraw3D, another Viewer/Editor for ldraw files
|
|
Sorry, it's my fault. I'll try to explain thinks better and change the page. What I can tell you right now is that you don't have the required java vm plugin installed in your browser - probably MS IE. Microsoft ships MSIE with his own (...) (21 years ago, 29-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: JDraw3D, another Viewer/Editor for ldraw files
|
|
(...) Interesting idea but you may want to provide a little more assistance to people on getting it running, like giving links to the prereqs for major platforms if you know what they are. I pressed the compatability test and got a grey area and no (...) (21 years ago, 29-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub 2.2.0.0 Available
|
|
(...) I meant this example: (URL) Kevin (21 years ago, 29-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.inst)
|
| |
| | LPub 2.2.0.0 Available
|
|
In the previous version of LPub I released some prototype new features for creating "callout" images, which are images of small assembly contruction, all tiled together into a single image, like this: (URL) this (URL) above callout image generation (...) (21 years ago, 29-Apr-03, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.inst)
|
| |
| | JDraw3D, another Viewer/Editor for ldraw files
|
|
Hello All, It's my first time posting here, but I just didn't know how to show to the public my program, a 3d viewer / editor for LDraw files. Please let me know what you think about it. It is written entirely in java, so it should be ready to run (...) (21 years ago, 28-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) (URL) (21 years ago, 28-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) could you post the link to it? I think it'd be a good thing to allow people to read it. Dan (21 years ago, 28-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: the LCD guys strike again :-)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I mean "Computing." That's what I get for not double checking. -Tim XFUT -> cad.dev (21 years ago, 28-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) I've marked up all I can see that needs to be tweaked up to this point. If anyone wants to have a look at what I have, please email me or post here, and I'll mail it to you. I don't want to post yet another revision, just to revise it again, (...) (21 years ago, 27-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) I agree. That's what I meant when I said the LSC is the first step twards an official LDraw.org body. The 4+1 are not really LDraw.org - they act in what they believe is it's best interest, but so do quite a few other people, who are just as (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) currently, since there is no formal organization (and we're starting to push for one, woo!), there really isn't an authority issue. There's only the ability. If Steve decides he's turning off the parts tracker, he can. If you (Tim) decide to (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Elections and Membership in ldraw.org
|
|
With 0.7 of the LSC proposal getting generally good reviews so far, it's likely that we're close to a final draft on the LSC proposal and it's time to start thinking about the things needed to make it happen. Since 0.7 replaces a temporary appointed (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) The thing is, right now they are LDraw.org. Do you prefer that we just refer to LDraw.org, without the names? I think it is important that LSC is under the LDraw.org umbrella. I invite you to start a new topic on moving from ad-hoc LDraw.org (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LD4DModeler status
|
|
LD4DModeler is awesome! Keep up the good work. -Mike (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) Yep. (...) Right. So are you trying to say something like; the individuals involved with the specific tasks are responsible/have the authority to make decisions regarding each technical task? That makes sense to me for the most (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
(...) absolutely! (...) I like this proposal a lot better, with one exception: (...) organization for LDraw, and then step down. Administrating the website, Parts Tracker and server are all separate technical functions, and do not fall under the (...) (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LSC Draft Proposal Version 0.7
|
|
Everyone - This has been a very good discussion on the LSC proposal so far. I have drafted a new version, 0.7, which attempts to clear up the confusion and ambiguity, and also adds in many peoples' suggestions. I've changed the references regarding (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Every time I've seen Qualification 2, I've thought it needed clarification. How about: "Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker and posted at least 5 reviews for each of at least 2 official updates." After all, just because someone only (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Part updates are currently every two months. 0303 (due to come out in about a week, I think?) will probably be a small update, since the Tracker hasn't been up for weeks. . . -- TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree that we have to avoid that risk you refer to, and I would suggest that be part of the LSC charter. As for the steering committee, I'm not sure the post from 2 years ago is really valid anymore, and would suggest the community start (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:27:28AM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote: [snip very good points] (...) Wayne, this is a great idea, and I would support this kind of process. Dan (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) it was semi-automatic - I used vimdiff to find all the differences, and marked them up manually. Didn't take long. But since it is manual, it's theoretically possible that I missed some - I promise, nothing was left out intentionally. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I guess I'm worried about the LSC defining a standard that has no meaning. Without the community accepting the standard, what's the point in having it defined? I do agree with later posts, especially wayne's - the vote is likely to become a (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) This is more what I was considering... a way for those who may or may not have been authoring Lego Parts to get a chance to be on the standards body. After all, its possible, but unlikely that another use for the program could overshadow the (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Yep, I agree 100%. Tomorrow I'm going to work on an 0.7 draft version of the proposal, taking in the useful comments made by all. It should tighten it up considerably from 0.6, eliminate the confusion, and add stuff like Wayne's recommendation (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I'm completely opposed to removing the voting power for the LSC. If the LSC can't set any standards why have it the first place. As the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. -Orion (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) How about this: Requirements for LSC Membership To ensure only competent, dedicated, and active contributors become members of the LSC, they shall have met one or more of the following requirements: - Authored an LDraw part subsequently (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) All: While a ratification vote is fairly common for technical committee proposals, I don't think I've ever heard of a ratification vote that did not sustain a technical committee's recommendation. If a technical committee is doing the wrong (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) All: I'm little behind the curve on this overall discussion, but I think I can speak to this issue. I think the proposed rules for LSC inclusion are quite reasonable. My reading of the rules is that I do not qualify for LSC membership (and I (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:20030423205226....ron.com... (...) retaining (...) I have been watching this thread from the sidelines. While I use a number of the tools (notably ML-CAD, L3P, L3PAO, LDAO, and LPub) I would not (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) That sounds good to me. If someone can further think this through, I can include it in a re-draft of the proposal sometime in the future. -Tim (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Not to overcomplexify but perhaps two nomination paths? One path if you are qualified under the criteria given already, and another, petition based, in which some number of qualified people vouched for you as a viable candidate? (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) what the differences are, which is a good thing. How did you generate it? (I know your aversion to MS and suspect you didn't use MS Word for the generation :) ) Hopefully some automatic way so we can be sure all the differences are (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I believe this proposal should make reference to the current steering committee, the only legitimate steering committee thus far. If it does not, there is a risk that the LSC could be misconstrued as _the_ governing body for all LDraw.org (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Thanks for the marked up version. It makes it clear that you want the community to have the deciding vote, not the LSC. May I ask why? Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Right. (...) I'm not sure here. If we make those requirements guidelines, it further weakens the LSC. BUT, as duly noted, we have two cases who could qualify, Dwayne and Wayne. I wouldn't want them excluded from the possibility of being LSC (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Putting on my legal hat: Notice that the draft proposal refers to "the LDraw Community", not the LEGO community. LDraw stands for LEGO Draw, which is the only time the word LEGO is used in the entire draft, so I'm not sure where you think that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
If I might ask a question... I see that this whole project is geared specificly toward Lego uses of the program. From my understanding, it will not be restricted to just Lego uses. Clone brands, as well as other things (there is a couple of block (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) here's a (manually) marked up version: (URL) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think it had many good ideas in it, indeed! (...) While I agree in general, I think the leadership of LDraw.org should not be part of this proposal. The LSC can easily start it's work, while the community works out the whole official org (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I'm sorry for the confusion here - Lar corrected me offline on the definition of 'subcommittee' (which technically typically means members drawn from the parent body [1], not the intent here). I didn't mean to imply that the 4+1/steering (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolution
|
|
(...) Hi Steve-- Thanks for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not modelling official elements! Clone brands have quite a few odd cones, arcs, and domes that just don't fit the official primitives, and if I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Yep. Steve and I have talked before about a voting mechanism. Basically, anyone who signed up to vote can vote. This mechanism hasn't been set up yet, but it can be discussed and set up in the relative near future - according to the proposal, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Everyone who is interested in LDraw related stuff is part of the community. The LDraw community has some official organizations like LDraw.org and soon to be the LSC. It is my understanding that anyone who wants to vote for the nominees (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Me either. Snipped the next bit because it's a good summation of the roles... (...) And thanks muchly for that! progress on overall org goals had stagnated. a good sharp poke was a good thing. <more snippage> (...) What I think Tim meant here (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) hmm ... probably it's due to a non-proper knowledge of the english language but now I'm even more confused! as far as I understand we have Ldraw members, which are not part of the community, community members which are not Ldraw members, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) [snip everything else, good stuff] I think I wasn't clear enough. As you read it, I don't agree either. I meant - this proposal is yet another catalyst to the issue of further organizing and defining LDraw.org. It isn't the LSC's job, but the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I don't think that what Kyle is describing is what I have in mind. LDraw.org is the natural group to designate that their will be an LSC committee. The committee is made up of "technically qualified" members. Only members of LDraw.org that are (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) formats. (...) ... (...) I interpret the "set in stone" statement to refer to the language as defined in 027 version of LDraw/LEdit. It is my belief that all the nuances (nucances :^) you mentioned should be described in the 0.27 document. The (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes: hi tim, (...) could you please sort this out in more detail? does it mean that the "Ldraw.org" file format will support, say 256 colors, no longer required to put dithered colors in subfiles, "set in (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think this looks very comprehensive - and I think the idea of choosing a small group of dedicated people to actually take the proposal forward is the way to go. I think this proposal is definitely a step in the right direction. ROSCO (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Resolution
|
|
(...) For general features, the standard rule of thumb is to model details which are 1LDU or larger. To cleanly model some features, you certainly can run into decimal places -- I typically go to 2 or 3 decimal places in part files. Any use of the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Dan, there seems to be some confusion here on your part. Hopefully other posters have cleared it up for you, but I want to go on record here on what the vision was. If it wasn't clear from the proposal, that's at least partly my fault since I (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Sorry, I should have said, "how LDraw.org should function as an organization in the future." -Tim (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you're misunderstanding, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the proposal. The leaders who set up the LSC are only setting it up, they aren't the initial members of the LSC. These people were self-selected two years ago, based on the fact (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) You're mostly right. I suppose the proposal/message wasn't clear enough (and this is the part I was afraid of it not being clear enough in, so I tried to disclaim it). A couple years ago, the four of us posted this message: (URL) - sometime (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Hi Dan, (...) Unless I mis-read something, I think this initial group of 5 is the (parent organization) LDraw.org's leadership doing double duty as the initial Ldraw.org Stnadards Comitee for the sole purpose of setting up how the Standards (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) right. I was saying that the LSC needs to be qualified (as Orion pointed out), AND that the LSC needs more representation from the programmers. Currently, as far as I can tell, it has (from the stats I could gather): Jacob: parts author, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Not to worry, combining things is more of a stretch goal (if you'll pardon the pun). Just one is good enough for now. (...) Maybe that's the way to go. I think actually I would go with Band and then hand edit away the 1/2 (of the synthesized (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Thanks Mike. Meanwhile I just installed make-3.79.1 and it makes lsynthcp OK without needing to install MSys. Gotta think about whether I want Cygwin or not... it's not like I don't have a bazillion other things I should be working on instead. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) I'll have to scope it out. (...) :^) by your ownb admission you have more experience than me, because I've never done it at all! If you would please I would be eternally gratefull. Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) You read undocumented code quite well! (...) Yup. But unfortunatly you want to combine open things (tubes) with closed loops (bands), and the program is fundamentally *not* written for that. Bummer. (...) Will the element do for now? Maybe we (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) I think I'll email it to you first this time. It looks like I must have implemented some of the changes mentioned in this thread here. (URL) a fix for the UPPERCASING bug and some stuff for UNITS, LENGTH and subfile NAMEs, but I don't remember (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HDrH7u.1FKp@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) You can get a full complemnt of Unix utilities for your PC (including Make) by installing Cygwin (which is free): (URL) It has a (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) OK, I did a little digging. If I understand what I am reading, the various types of things that can be synthesized are defined with constants in the lsynth.h include. Elsewhere in the code these constants are checked (driven by what's found in (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Letting me peek at the changes would be cool, but feel to check it in. (...) Will you package a source release please? (...) Thanks, Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) I'm not sure. What are you trying to do? If just you're looking to browse the code, then follow the "Browse CVS" link near the bottom of the page at the URL given above. If you want upload changes to the code you'll have to get a CVS program (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) I found the code (I was looking for released files, not in the CVS tree) and have extracted it (via WinCVS) to take a look... (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Preview of multi-level callouts complete with pointers
|
|
<snip> (...) things (...) seperators (...) I wanted to point out that the callout facilities (which I am starting to think of as step layout facilities), is all *post* POV production work, which means it is instantaneous compared to POV time. Making (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Preview of multi-level callouts complete with pointers
|
|
<snip> (...) things (...) seperators (...) I wanted to point out that the callout facilities (which I am starting to think of as step layout facilities), is all *post* POV production work, which means it is instantaneous compared to POV time. Making (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Sorry, not intending to shame you. You are looking in the right place, but I'm a neophyte on source forge. Don, what have I failed to do? Thanks, Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Ya. I have made good use of LSynth for hoses and for rubber bands in my current project and found it easy to use so I'm definitely interested in using it!!!! (...) OK, well maybe you've shamed me into taking a look. I just went to sourceforge (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) If I recall, it was Kevin's lack of time that prompted him to open up the lsynth code and solicit your help. (I think he may have mentioned you specifically ;) Also, I imagine you could argue that contributing to lsynth satisfies requirement 3 (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) flex (...) I assume the lack of interest is in the coding, not the using :^) I have a similar lack of time. Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) That was the intent of the minimum requirements. I'd like this to be as open as possible too, without risking the integrity and competency of the decision making body by allowing someone to walk in off the street and get in. (...) Yep. I'm (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Except for time/skill/interest. (mostly time) (...) I'm thinking that just allowing for a level of indirection might do the trick. If you added a way to just specify what part you wanted used for the stringing together, and allowed it to be (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree that the slots should be open to everyone but I'd like to weed out those who are the "rainy day" LDrawers. In other words, you need to have proven your competency and commitment. We could go on and on about what qualification someone (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Right. The proposal is set up in such a way to encourage everyone - programmer or not - to discuss the issues publicly. When it comes to making decisions, a limited group of qualified people (in this case, programmers, parts authors, or (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree, 100%. I think we should have more representation from the programming side of the community. :) Dan (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
I'm going to snip out the stuff I'm not going to comment on (...) I like this distiction. Now we can concentrate on forging a new path without having to worry about legacy DOS programs (...) I like this idea of having qualified members. You are (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Preview of multi-level callouts complete with pointers
|
|
(...) I was thinking more about this (and I've asked Miguel to help me with the resolution independent architecture of the new LPub features), and there are two *different* issues here. Issue 1: I want to render everything in low resolution (to save (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Absolutely! Good point! (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) But since you've made the source for lsynth available, there's no reason why Larry couldn't attempt to add the string part to the code himself and then submit the patches to you for official approval. Right? Isn't that the whole point of (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth
|
|
(...) Not currently. (...) Thanks for buying the book. You are right, it does not cover this. Currently LSynth only supports either open ended or closed loop. No mixing. (...) Yes. It would. There are a *number* of things it cannot do.... yet! (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Use of arbitrary elements with LSynth [DAT]
|
|
Kevin I've created an element that represents a small segment of string. It's not a real, legitimate LDraw part, per se, but I find it useful in my modeling. Is it possible to get LSynth to use this element? I'm looking for it to be treated similar (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Preview of multi-level callouts complete with pointers
|
|
(...) Well I guess the above "ascii draw" diagram didn't work too well with proportional fonts. Oh, well. (...) Per Jennifer Clark's recommendation in private, I'm going to convert the pointer units from pixels to scaling factors from 0 to 1, where (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.inst)
|
| |
| | Re: Some more LPub errors?
|
|
(...) Fixed. (...) Found it in part list image rendering, thanks. Fixed it. (...) I think that in the case of LSynth I can make this happen, but otherwise I think this is going to have to be left as "an exercise for the student". (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub request
|
|
(...) I've modified LPub to ignore submodel parts as well as primitives when making PLIs and BOMs. To address your request more specifically... LPub would have to look for pairs of s/faxel1 through s/faxle5 and automatically substitute. I'd prefer (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Thanks, Kevin. I'd like to see some good discussion on this here before moving on it. Does anyone have any comments, concerns? (...) Thanks! I couldn't have put that together without you, the others we were mailing with, and the community (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) <snip> Thanks for all your efforts Tim. Lets get started! I appreciate all the hard work you put in on this. Lets put it to good use. Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) <snip> This is great stuff. Thanks, Tim for pushing this forward, others contributed, but you certainly did a great job including everyone's comments and pulling together a cogent draft proposal for the LSC. I plan to stand for election to it (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
Looks like you guys have spent a lot of time thinking about how to go about this in a fair and equitable way, very comprehensive. It feels a lot like the way standards are created in the high-tech world which benefits everyone! This is a great time, (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some more LPub errors?
|
|
"Kevin L. Clague" <kevin_clague@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet news:HDpArM.n2J@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) Why not have an invisible LDRAW part with color, just like the LIGHT.DAT? -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Resolution
|
|
When authoring new elements, how important is the level of detail in LDraw format? That is, for more complex curves and surfaces, is it necessary to get as close to the real thing as possible? As an alternative, is it acceptable to get pretty close (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Preview of multi-level callouts complete with pointers
|
|
(...) The callouts are placed relative to outside edges or corners of the step image: Corners: TOP_LEFT TOP_RIGHT BOTTOM_LEFT BOTTOM_RIGHT Edges plus justification to the perpendicular edges TOP (LEFT, CENTER or RIGHT) BOTTOM (LEFT, CENTER or RIGHT) (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.inst)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
As Orion posted earlier today, let's revisit the LDraw.org standards body idea. [1] Here is the draft proposal I mentioned earlier today on LUGNET. I'm posting it here for everyone to discuss. Several weeks ago, I worked with Kevin Clague, Larry (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Preview of multi-level callouts complete with pointers
|
|
Hi Kevin, You've done it again! This is a HUGE improvement as it allows a much needed "step hierarchy", extremely useful for generating instructions - your step 0 is actually two steps. This is really great. I am probably being too inquisitive too (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some more LPub errors?
|
|
(...) edges (...) Ah, this is different than what you first described. LPub tries to ignore primitives when making PLIs and BOMs. I wonder why it missed these. I can recommend a work around: PLIST BEGIN IGN PLIST END Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some more LPub errors?
|
|
(...) I did that already just to make sure and got no error. Here's some more info I've found troubleshooting This error seems to occur when LPub thinks the X-Xedge.dat primitive are parts for the Construction Images and BOM. In other words LPub (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some more LPub errors?
|
|
(...) Please try to run lpubtest.dat through L3P manually. I do not have a way to continue if L3P finds an error in the file. You may need to talk to Lars about this one. Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
