 | | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
Hi, i've found some more commands in MLCad which I introduced totaly new, ... but long time ago. So there is this ROTATION command, which was used at the early days of MLCad instead of ROTSTEP. Later I learned that this conflicts with LD-Lite. So I (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
Don (& all) - The fact that the MLCAD extensions are under such license makes me very nervous as well. I am of the opinion that any extensions used with the LDraw file format should be documented on LDraw.org and made freely available for use (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Meanwhile, Steve could you switch the parts tracker to use MLCAD instead of ldglite to generate the image files? The whole license thing and especially the "liable for damages" part makes me nervous. I don't want to be sued just because (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) That, and the fact that MLCAD adds two 0 ROTATION statements to the header of every model file it edits. (...) Actually, only commented-out versions of the ROTATION meta-statement have appeared in parts (ie, '0 0 ROTATION'). The submit process (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) Perhaps the use of the "ROTATION CENTER" meta statement in the parts library can be changed into a different, non-licensed format? The word "CENTER" breaks the standing LDraw tradition of using British English terms anyway. In my opinion it (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) Uh Oh, we need some *unlicensed* documentation on this meta command. It's already used in some official parts. If I have to get permission in writing to use all the features of the official parts (or be liable for unspecified damages) I'm (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
hi steve, (...) many thx for the hint. (...) are we takling about categories like "brick" and "plate" or sub-categories, which will need a renaming of the header? probably the fact that I just use MLCad causes some misunderstanding. I can't see a (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) WAY better than using naming to overload. 2916 and 2917 get at best a very weak association if they have train in their name. With the ASSOCIATE keyword extension it becomes quite explicit what their connection is. (and parts can also have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Yes. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Hmm. Interesting idea. So part 3937 (URL) might have an entry like: 0 ASSOCIATE 3938 6134 and part 3938 (URL) might have: 0 ASSOCIATE 3937 2440 (of course, these examples capture information that otherwise might be captured by a connectivity (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
