 | | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) I'd prefer we say that local/absolute references are allowed, but provide guidelines to show that relative paths are usually better - easier to manage, easier to share, etc. (...) Yes, yes, and I'm guessing yes. (...) I think you are correct - (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Good question. Different programs have more (or less) success at handling this. L3Lab seems to have no trouble with it. LDLite usually does ok, but not always (unfortunately, I don't have an example). (...) There's no special syntax, the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Auggh! Hey, it's not too late -- there is no official BFC spec. Yet. :> Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Right. Any "MPD splitter" program should include code to check that filenames and paths are valid, and either report missing paths, or create them, or ask the user before creating them, or provide options (ie, command line parameters) to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) MPD files should not be named ".ldr" (or ".dat")! Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Done. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) I am not sure about explicit drive references. Actually, I think we should limit it to _relative_ paths. We should also decide on a preferred - or maybe even fixed - directory name delimiter. I suppose that it should be "\", even though Unix (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I would even call it a bad thing to do. But then I have a habit of putting "FILE" meta-command in all my files, so maybe I should stop criticising and try to fix my own bad habits first. > It's very easy to overwrite the main file with if the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I have ldr files with up to 4 levels of nested sub files, and LDview, L3Lab, and MLCad all appear to render them fine. ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I don't know about the other parsers, but as far as LDView is concerned an LDraw file is an LDraw file is an LDraw file. It makes no distinctions between ldr files, dat files, and mpd files. If it sees a 0 FILE command, it starts its MPD (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I don't know how ldglite and other parsers work, but I guess they don't create files with paths and all, but rather objects somewhere in RAM, with 'filenames' just as a property. But if you call the procedure SaveToFile(Path+FileName) to save (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) This is a very good question, and is even more important with the migration to a single filename suffix (.LDR). What happens when your type-1 line refers to a LDR that happens to be a multi-part dat? Cheers, - jsproat (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Another thing I realised the other day is that in Australia, the opposite of clockwise is generally anti-clockwise rather than counter-clockwise, so the BFC CERTIFY should really be CW or ACW, but it's a bit late to worry about it now! ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) FWIW both the ldlite and l3 parsers in ldglite are OK with paths in an MPD file. Just make sure the path in the 0 FILE line matches the path on the type 1 line that pulls in the subfile. If they don't match it reports that it can't find the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
I was wondering, didn't see it discussed in the text, is it permitted / custom to have ldraw files in a mpd file reference other mpd files? If so is the first part in the file used or is there some naming convention pointing to the correctsubpart (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Hmm. I don't remember if there was a lot of discussion about putting paths on the 0 FILE line. So I won't say for absolute sure that the program should allow them. I'd say any software that *thinks* it needs a directory, and crashes when it's (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Err, the entry for MPD in the glossary: (URL) here: (URL) is a bad link. Could you update the glossary to point to the new spec? Don (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) MPD Workshop cannot handle a reference to a non-existing directory, or rather, it does not create a folder if necessary. For example: (URL) line: 0 FILE s\41342s01.dat assumes that there already exists the folder 's\' in the target directory, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Good point. Should probably also add the following... - There shouldn't be multiple files with the same name. - paths are allowed, so are explicit drive references. But the capability should be use with restraint, since it can easily make it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) One addition that might be useful for people using the spec is to explicitly state that other than the first file being the main one, there is no implicit order to the remaining files. This is implied by the existing spec, but not actually (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
Great! One question: I think I've seen some MPD files with the extension .dat and named exactly the same as its main model sub-file. IMHO, it's a risky thing to do. It's very easy to overwrite the main file with if the mpd is named the same. (It (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I don't know if we ever agreed on it; I don't remember the discussion of it at all. But I included it in the page. (...) Oyez, oyez! Please read the new Multi-Part DAT (MPD) Language Extension specification at (URL). All comments, suggestions, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Not at all. It seems like a very sensible thing to do. I presume that the update will include the "NOFILE" meta-command (if we ever got around to agree on it). Please announce it, when the copy is ready, so I can change my web pages to point (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Jacob, Do you mind if I copy (and update) the information on your MPD page to www.ldraw.org/reference/specs? Steve (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
(...) I only saw one MOTM entry. Is that correct or am I having troubles? I would think if there was only one entry, it will win... why make us vote in that case? (although the automated system may not handle that very well I guess) (22 years ago, 4-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
Hi All, Sorry for being late. Vacation time. :-) Missing those margaritas on the Mexican beach already.... This months winner for Model Of The Month is Shimpei Ohsumi for a remarkably accurate rendition of the Honda Bite. Love that minimalist (...) (22 years ago, 4-Aug-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) Thanks for the moderating comment. Michael, here is a suggestion for what you can write about the rights to your specification: © Copyright 2002, Michael L. Since this document is made available free of charge, I can not make any promises (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
Hello, I think we should wait what Michael is coming up with before making harsh comments. I followed this whole discussion from the start and i think it's always right to state your opinion - but please do this in a constructive way. Thank you. (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) OK, leave it in, but it still makes me nervous. Let's wait and see if Michael comes to his senses and drops the license. Don (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I know. But if we have to disable LDGLite on Munin, that basically means that we have to deactivate the whole parts tracker. And if it should have any real meaning, we should also stop distributing the LDraw parts library, since it probably (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Oops, I meant to put a link to this here. (URL) think everyone should read and think about it before they make any sort of decision involving licenses. Enjoy, Don (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) Perhaps, but you and I are not lawyers, and from my viewpoint intellectual property law is a complete mess right now. Who knows what a lawyer might think. (...) I agree, that doesn't make much sense. When the topic came up on the Mac Ldraw (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) Yes, what's needed here is NO license, not a NEW license. Michael if you're using MLCAD to bring visitors to your site in order to drum up business for your software company, that's fine. Just ask politely and we'll provide the links for (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) If your new license for puts any restrictions whatsoever on the right to use or implement your extensions, you can just as well save your own time and leave it as it is. Play well, Jacob (who might decide to act like the BOFH he really is) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MLCad extensions in the files on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) I do not think it is necessary, since the version of LDGLite we are using was developed before the MLCAD documentation was published. But maybe I should ban all non-Open Source software on Munin? (but that it would prevent the distribution of (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
