 | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | (...) Um, me too. :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | | Ok, I will think on this too. Just a summary: There are four options for a single part rotation: 1 - Rotate via origin of the part 2 - Rotate via center of part 3 - rotate via world origin(0/0/0) and 4 - rotate over a user set rotation point. For (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Mogens Sørensen
|
| | | | Michael Lachmann <m.lachmann@xpoint.at> skrev i en nyhedsmeddelelse:FzB...net.com... (...) I think no. 3 is unnecessary. You'll be able to do that, by setting user-set-rotation-point to (0,0,0). (...) As above, I think Rotate-via-world-origin might (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) An idea, straight out of left field: named rotation centers. Why restrict yourself to just one? It should be possible to have *several* user-defined rotation centers, and when the user wants to rotate a subpart, MLCad could use the *current* (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Cool idea. (...) Is there an advantage to stuffing them in a separate subfile, other than neatness? That approach *requires* the use of MPD for storage. If they could scoped to be 'located' in specific subfiles (or the main file), that would (...) (24 years ago, 16-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Michael Lachmann
|
| | | | | I like this idea of storing the rotation data. But I wouldn't restrict it to mpd but store it in any dat file ... This allows having different rotation points per sub-model. I will forsee something like the statement suggested from Sproaticus (...) (24 years ago, 16-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) Cool! :-, (...) (Also answering Steve's post) Nah, I wasn't thinking of restricting it to a sub-file only, but rather to have the option of doing so. In fact, for simple one-off models (which the majority of mine are, anyway), it would be best (...) (24 years ago, 16-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) But an include function is different from a subfile function. Basically, anything in a subfile is scoped to that subfile, and doesn't exist outside of the subfile. Yet another reason for a 0 INCLUDE (or 0 MACRO) meta-statement. Steve (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | | | Steve Bliss wrote... (...) If you by "subfile" mean an MPD subfile, I think the scope is public, see the thread (URL) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) An MPD header, hmmm? Handy for storing metadata, non-DAT directives, loose change, etc... I *really* like this idea. How many MPD-capable tools would need changes to allow this? Is non-DAT content before the first 0 FILE generally ignored? (...) (24 years ago, 16-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: MLCAD rotation (future request) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) The original definition for MPD states that data before the first 0 FILE statement will be ignored. This is because it was assumed that MPD streams would appear mostly in e-mail messages with included DAT content. Something like: ===...=== Hi! (...) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| | | | |
