Subject:
|
Re: Ghost bug in 3.11
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.mlcad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:48:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8466 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.mlcad, Lee Gaiteri wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.mlcad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
<snip>
> > >
> > > 0 MLCAD CALLOUT [number] [part or submodel]
> > > 0 MLCAD CALLOUT BUILD [number] [submodel]
> > >
> > > The number would be shown as 2x, 3x, etc. in the corner of the callout diagram
> > > (ignoring 0 or 1). The BUILD option would show the entire submodel as a callout,
> > > step by step. In either case the part or submodel would also include position
> > > and rotation info, though position would be relative to the default placement in
> > > the box.
> >
> > MLCAD would have to make a *lot* of assumptions based on the scant info you
> > propose above. How will MLCAD know when to put in dividers? How will MLCAD
> > know whether the dividers are horizontal or vertical? How ill MLCAD know what
> > kinds of margins to use between steps, steps and step numbers, steps and
> > dividers?
>
> Yep, I figured there wasn't enough info provided. But most of the point, I
> think, is to show that a callout is wanted in a specific place in the model. The
> dimensions of the box don't matter to that end; that sort of thing is mostly the
> domain of preference settings, or in a second meta command.
>
> Dividers and margins I don't think are critical choices. Most simple callouts
> simply don't use dividers, and margin calculations can be automatic based on the
> scale and the boundaries of the parts. Scale should naturally be based on the
> current step, but it could be slightly larger if the step is scaled way down
> (i.e., minimum distance (perspective) or maximum scale (orthographic) would be
> respected).
>
> > Do you want nested callouts (sub-submodels called out by submodels which are
> > called out at some level?)
>
> I'm thinking of something less complex than LPub's nesting system (although I
> think they could be compatible, since submodels could use this command), mostly
> meant for very simple submodels. It could also be used to display a piece from a
> different angle, like for example a castle wall with a brick pattern, so readers
> of the instructions would know specifically which piece to put there. (Better
> still would be yet another meta command that placed such a box directly above
> where the part is placed. The only caveat is that such a box couldn't cover any
> part added in the current step.) In one step of my model I've got a slope brick
> 45 2x2 double convex, of which I use 3 in that step, but they all face away from
> the view angle. A simple box that shows the part at the desired angle and a "3x"
> would be enough.
Pardon LPub's use of CALLOUT in meta-commands. Perhaps I chose too generic a
term, but...... The term is there and I thing it would be a very *bad* thing to
have callout mean one thing in LPub and a totally different thing in MLCad.
>
> I'm quite curious to see though how LPub's new callout meta commands will work,
> though. As long as some tool is doing it, I'm happy.
You cannot use LPub's callout facility to show a given arbitrary brick at an
alternate angle (I don't think). New and old are basically the same though.
There a minor syntactic differences, but not much else.
I suppose that if you created a sub-model that contained your one slope part
with the part oriented like you'd like, you could use it in place of one of your
slopes in the containing sub-model. LPub would create the callout image, but
since it is called out, the parts added in the callout end up in the PLI of the
step that calls your slope out. Everything would look just right.
I guess in my mind, Michael has cornered the market on CAD entry system. MLCad
is a beautiful thing, and we are all in debt to Michael for his fine work and
his generousity. LPub was written to complement MLCad function. The only
overlap in responsibilities between MLCad and LSynth is in the generation of
assembly step images. MLCad has no PLI facility. MLCad produces a part list
for the whole model, so does LPub, but MLCad does it textually and LPub does it
graphically.
Michael can add whatever he wants to MLCad (obviously), but it seems like a
waste of precious programming work (skilled programmers times the number of
hours spent), to reimplement something in MLCad that LPub can provide
(expecially now with LDGLite that makes rendering time *very* quick). As Don
points out, there are few who seem to step to the plate when it comes to
development of LDraw software. Why waste the resource by doing redundant work?
>
> Lummox JR
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ghost bug in 3.11
|
| (...) Didn't try those, though I doubt they'd make it ignore CLEAR. (...) Sounds good to me. (...) I'm not sure I follow why ghosting these would be a bad idea. Since ghosting is only supposed to hide something if it's not the main model, ghosting (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
