 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names
|
|
(...) I would rather say that I had been lucky with the design of the program. I don't think I had to change much to make it work as you requested, but you can compare this and the previous version of the source code. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) [...] That looks like the right solution. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names
|
|
(...) Wow! That was fast! :) Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) No, I hadn't. I was taking the view that MPD files are not compatible with LDraw, and I was not too concerned with making them 'more compatible'. See my other recent message for a suggested way to standardize both "LDraw-ready" and "never (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names
|
|
(...) Okay. I have made that an option with the latest edition of my MPD splitter: (URL) Here is my list of how software can handle this, in order from least (...) Except for the option of prompting before creating a directory, I have implemented (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Have you considered that that means that MPD files will no longer be able to be rendered by LDraw? (or have I overlooked something?) (...) Yes, but it is a single-level subroutine system like in C. (I complain about it in C, but that is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) These are good points. Perhaps we should define the spec with two levels: "strict MPD" and "expanded MPD". Strict MPD would require everything necessary to render files with ldraw: - All names on FILE statements follow the DOS filenaming (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
| |
| | Re: MPD spec
|
|
(...) Because we ought to differentiate between files that can be processed directly by LDraw, and those which have to be filtered through another tool (a MPD splitter) before LDraw can render them. If we decide to scrap LDraw compatibility, this is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) :-( I have fixed my MPD splitter. The updated version will show up on: (URL) tonight (or early tomorrow). Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
|
(...) I tend to disagree. Given that the whole point of MPD files is to allow LDraw files to be more portable across multiple machines, I think absolute paths should be disallowed. It doesn't make sense to me to allow absolute paths in a file format (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
