 | | L3P Warnings
|
|
Using L3P v1.4 Beta, I revieve a lot of warnings from my dat files with inline POV code: WARNING "3901.dat" Line 11: This keyword is deprecated: 0 L3P IFNOTPOV WARNING "3901.dat" Line 458: This keyword is deprecated: 0 L3P ELSEPOV WARNING "3901.dat" (...) (14 years ago, 26-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) You should just ignore these warnings. They are meant to discourage further use, but they will still work. I should look into my old L3PPARTS project... /Lars (14 years ago, 28-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Wait a minute! I use L3P and inlined POV-Ray code almost daily--don't tell me that this is being phased out? Aaaaagghh! Dave! (14 years ago, 28-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Let's initiate a list of signatures at once! :) /Tore (Another almost daily inlined POV-code user) (14 years ago, 28-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) A highly unpopular and controversial issue with LDRAW. You'd best create a working group to study the impact of creating your own sub-committee of an existing LDRAW committee for the purposes of resurrecting challenges to an asked-and-answered (...) (14 years ago, 28-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) As I understand it, nearly all of the fuss was about the fact that POV-Ray is a whole separate organism not under the control of the LSC, so any "official" additions to the LDraw library that contained inlined POV-Ray code would be at the (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) As far I understand it, the main reason the LSC don't want POV code in the parts themselves is because of the 'pollution'. Because another person might want blender code or maybe even something (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) After some tough discussion some years ago, I now agree on that (although so far, I've seen nothing that comes remotely close to L3P+POV-Ray. And I doubt there will be in a foreseeable future). (...) You don't??? Are you serious? I can (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote: <snip> (...) I'm sorry I really don't, the 'if then' construction is pretty much the same only thing is the two versions are in the same file. So perhaps you are hinting on maintainability or mixed single (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the decision to disallow inline POV code in official parts was made prior to the creation of the LSC. On a side note, LDView's POV export functionality supports L3P's inline POV syntax. --Travis (14 years ago, 30-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) The decision not to include POV code in LDraw part files was made by the LSC - see (URL) for the rationale. Chris (14 years ago, 30-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm not conversant with LGEO or the like; what would the filename format be for these alternate parts? That is, if a 2x4 brick is 3001.dat, what's the equivalent name of the LGEO version? I ask because I like sticking with the DAT suffix, and (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I guess there we have the really big problem. We all have our own LDraw universes, and we all use LDraw for so very different purposes, different tools of choise, different approaches, different thinking, different ways to solve problems, (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) This hits on the main issue, as far as I'm concerned. There are certain elements that simply can't be rendered well within the constraints of the official, accepted LDraw code language. My interest, of course, is in clone elements. I grant (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
--snip-- (...) LGEO was updated fairly recently (in the last two years anyway) so it's definitely being updated sometimes. The newer LDView releases also make POVray export very easy and you can add parts you've made yourself simply by editing a (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) But does such an export include the POV-enhanced parts in proper matrix alignment, or does the user have to figure out how to orient the part to match the output file? If the latter, then it's equivalent to not supporting the POV-Ray elements (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I think I've got a solution for you and Dave. Stop worrying about the messages. ;) No, really. The current version of L3P still does what you want, right? And I think we can safely predict that the next non-beta version of L3P is highly (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote: <snip> (...) alternatives. In that case I think Don is right, just ignore the warnings and keep doing what you like. I doubt Lars will stop supporting his own LDraw meta extensions altogether. (...) The thing (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) See also my reply on Tore Eriksson message. It would be called 3001.pov and has the same information in it as the 'else' portion of the current dat files (although without the leading 0's, it would (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Thanks, but no, I don't get irritated so no need for yet another parameter to silence certain warnings. I was just a little worried. And if a future version of L3P will no longer support inline code, I'll probably stick to 1.4 Beta - if not (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) LDView already has the ability to do this automatic replacement during POV export: Create a POV directory inside your LDraw directory Put p an parts directories in the POV directory Drop in POV files with the same filenames as the original (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Question my sanity if you must, but I'll have you know that I haven't used a 386 since 2008. I hadn't thought about the likelihood of a non-beta version being released, but as long as it supports the old syntax, then I don't care what kind of (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I don't know. All I know is that I export a POV file and it works well. That's pretty much how I like my software to work. (...) They could upload the files they've made. In fact, I have done so before. (...) It's more like offering people the (...) (14 years ago, 1-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Upload to where? If it's to a commonly-accessible LDraw-friendly site, then how do we avoid having to sift through 500 different versions of 3001.dat? And if it's to an individual's own personal site, then that's equivalent to hiding the file (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- By that argument you dismiss the opposite perspective. You call 'facile' on any argument, no matter how strong, that disagrees with your own position. I have a very clear argument for my position: POVray is not LDraw and to (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Bad simile, but ok then: I want pizza-pie and I respect those who want pizza XOR pie. Then let all three alternatives be available on the market. No Government Control over personal taste. I model in LDraw and render the final result in (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I upload my POV enhanced LDraw dat files as replies to this post here in Lugnet: (URL) I will continue with that as long as the posts seem to be popular. If you have more Lego parts in the same spirit, they are welcome in that thread. About (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) If we were both sitting on a bench somewhere and arguing from equal positions of power, then that statement would make sense. However, you are speaking from the position of The Mighty LSC, an entity apparently able to make decisions by fiat. (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) No, the IFPPOV-ELSEPOV-ENDPOV typically does not cover the whole file. The main idea behind *inlining* POV code is that many parts only have a small tricky/curvy section that would look better with POV code, so only e.g. 5 % of the file should (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Wow. You're totally confusing me with someone else. I've never been in the LSC, haven't been in the SteerCo for a couple of years, haven't had much at all to do with the LDraw header (other than a teensy bit to do with the licensing which, (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) You've been parroting the company line in this thread and that previous one, so even though you're not literally affiliated with the LSC, you're playing the part of cheerleader here, so it's pretty much the same thing. Your position is not (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
<snip> And here I was... thinking the old LUGNET was gone forever. (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray) !
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Quick! Somebody bring up the separation of church and state! (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Speaking of ray-tracing then, I prusume... (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) --snip-- So pretty much you're saying you think that anyone who disagrees with you does so not from their own reasoned perspective but because of some collective dogma. Well now that we've cleared that up I'll know never to bother with you (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Nowhere have you presented an argument that differ in any way from the "collective dogma," so I don't see why your argument should be treated any differently. (...) Don't tease. In your previous reply you said that you were done with the (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I know, I know. Fair call. I should have learnt years ago never to claim I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. That is lame. Please pretend I murfled both hissy fits. I find it much too difficult to resist attacks against my person and (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm intrigued - the only point in that last sentence that differentiates the "indecipherable gobbledygook" from the inline POV is that the latter "yields a greatly superior output image". It's certainly no less invisible to the end-user, nor (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers. The extended period of discussion (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I agree to some extent. But now it's there, like it or not. I have very little (if any?) use of it and yes it annoys me a little. The deleting of extra blank lines (used to group lines some way related to eachother) that makes the dat code a (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm guilty of that blank-space-deletion in my own parts, I confess. I do most of my authoring in Excel, and sometimes it becomes helpful to sort by linetype. This has the effect of stripping out the blank lines or at least moving them around (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Ah Ha! I knew it! When I suggested you were probably "still running the original LEDIT program on some ancient 386 ... stashed in an attic somewhere", you only denied the 386 part. You *are* still running LEDIT in somebody's attic! So I know (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'd agree, if that was the only benefit of the "discussion and hand-wringing", however the primary benefit of it was to get a library that could be freely distributed with the blessing of the Jessimans. (...) I don't see that it does. (...) (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Hmm... This is reminding me of deja vu. Did you email me about this, maybe five or six years ago? Okay, okay. I'll give it a try. But if it doesn't chase those pesky kids off of my lawn, I'm going right back to the full-screen obsolescence of (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) To be more precise 'with the legal blessing of the Jessiman's and everyone who has ever contributed a part.' As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread one of the benefits is that someone could release a perfectly legal version of the library (...) (14 years ago, 9-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Damn! And the whole discussion is too esoteric for me to jump in>:-( JOHN (14 years ago, 10-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
