 | | Re: MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
(...) I'm sorry, I wasn't precise enough. What I was suggesting was something a bit more "nuanced" than a straight rollover. (which I have requested in the past) Rather than just requesting a rollover no matter what, my next entry will carry a note (...) (22 years ago, 14-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
(...) I hadn't noticed that. Is it possible to post a permanent rollover request, so I don't have to remember it whenever I have submitted a model or scene? Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 14-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
(...) Rollover requests are SOP. But the submitters must request a rollover, and few ever do. -- Terry K -- (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
(...) Yep. But what is going to happen this month is fine, I guess... I wouldn't change the rules out from under this month's entry. They win. :-) Going forward... This may be too complex but perhaps you could roll over those previous month entries (...) (22 years ago, 11-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM and SOTM winners for July 2002
|
|
(...) Hi Larry, There is only one. At least that was all I had - there may have been more, but my email crapped out. So yes, that one will be a default winner. I've not given a lot of thought about what to do when there is only one entry. Or no (...) (22 years ago, 10-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) I'd like to weigh in on this issue. I like using the .ldr extension for everything. I also like being able to refer to another MPD file (with the .ldr extension) from within an MPD file. I also like being able to call the the first subfile the (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
I think I am going to load referenced subparts only and use the first one of recursive mpd files, ignoring the rest for now for LD4DModeler's MPD support. Roland. (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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: 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)
|
