 | | Re: V3.00 Bug? / Beauty Error?
|
|
Hi Ludo, "ludo soete" <ludo.soete@village.uunet.be> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu66H9.ouy@lugnet.com... (...) club (...) the (...) error (...) thanks for this report I'll go and have a look. Michael (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | New MOC - Poster of my favorite band
|
|
Hi to all LEGO Fans! I am glad I can present my latest MOC now, since I have been less active in the hobby than usual for this year so far... In fact this MOC is something very special to me: I have not only convinced my wife Jessica to build an (...) (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.build.schleim, lugnet.loc.de, FTX) !
|
| |
| | V3.00 Bug? / Beauty Error? [DAT]
|
|
Hi Michael, I think that i found a little 'beauty' error / bug in MLCAD V3.00. While playing with MLCAD on the past Hobby Salon in Antwerp (Belgium), my club collegues added new colors to the color palette, the selection just after the Transparent (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
Please have a look at my suggestion on how to solve this problem, and let me know what you think: (URL) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) It did for me. When MLCad found the refernce to 973p11.dat and asked if I wanted to upgrade, it changed all the "973p11.dat" references to "973p1a,.dat" references. Note the ",". -Orion (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
"Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4JnF.15r3@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) 0 (...) 0 (...) such. (...) think (...) change of (...) rendering (...) MLCad does not mess it up, but doesn't detect more levels (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) I had a look at 973p11.dat and I see what you mean. I'm not sure. (...) The rendering code is very neccessary. Not all LDraw programs automatically detect the fact the a file ahas been moved. If there were no rending code the the model could (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I'm a little bit slow. Exactly how am I supposed to do that with 973p11.dat? And then make this a generic routine for a utility to handle automatically? (...) My opinion is that neither MLCad nor MovedTo.exe messes anything up. I think (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) There is: use the file referenced by the type 1 line in the MovedTo file. (...) Yes, MLCad messes this up as well. The problem is that you're using the 0 ~MovedTo comment as a reference instead of the type 1 line in the file. 0 ~MovedTo is a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) When rendering Datsville, you'll recieve several hundreds of "Part n Moved moved to nn" messages. It is totally necessary to find a way to eliminate them, so I invented the movedto utility. (...) Yes, that's one of the uses for the "~Moved (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
