2019-08-10, 20:53
Are there any known programs that would load a file incorrectly if it's extension was ldr but was, in fact, a mpd? If not, I move to retire the mpd file extension and have all non-part files be .ldr
(2019-08-10, 20:53)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Are there any known programs that would load a file incorrectly if it's extension was ldr but was, in fact, a mpd? If not, I move to retire the mpd file extension and have all non-part files be .ldr
(2019-08-10, 20:53)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Are there any known programs that would load a file incorrectly if it's extension was ldr but was, in fact, a mpd? If not, I move to retire the mpd file extension and have all non-part files be .ldr
(2019-08-12, 18:08)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]LDCad doesn't care about the extension, only header, content and as a fallback the location (library or not) are used.
But why would you want to retire the extension?
I don't really see an advantage, unless we drop .dat too and use .ldr for everything.
(2019-08-12, 18:39)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Because it's:
- Not necessary
- LDCad (and other programs) don't save the file with a MPD extension if it is an MPD
- I'm tired of the MPD vs. LDR extension argument with the OMR
The library can stay DAT since:
- We would have to recycle almost the entire library to update the type lines
- Provides a nice distinction between user edited files (LDR) and the library.
(2019-08-13, 6:44)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]I wish LDCad had proper MPD support for import/export of submodels.
(2019-08-13, 6:44)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine with MPD. A quick look at the extension tells you that there will be submodels and that it is or a scene or a model say with movable subparts.
I wish LDCad had proper MPD support for import/export of submodels.
w.
(2019-08-15, 20:43)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]There are some tools, like:
reorganize/detach content (on a selection)
session/detach this subfile
but for mass conversion I suggest using mpdcenter as the selection detach isn't applied recursively.
(2019-08-16, 7:16)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]I know this all perfectly. Honestly speaking for me it is not an option saving my work, firing up another prog just to import a submodel I used in another project.Same here... the thing I miss most would be the possibility to exchange submodels (and their dependancies) between two opened models!
(2019-08-15, 20:43)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]There are some tools, like:As already mentioned, I never thought I would become a diehard LDCad'er.
reorganize/detach content (on a selection)
session/detach this subfile
but for mass conversion I suggest using mpdcenter as the selection detach isn't applied recursively.
(2019-08-17, 17:58)Max Martin Richter Wrote: [ -> ]I'm completely fine with having the mpd beside ldr and dat extension.+1...
It shows perfectly, what is inside a model.
dat -> for parts (and subparts)
ldr -> for single models
mpd -> for models with submodels or several single models.
Therefor I don't like the idea to retire the mpd extension.
/Max
(2019-08-17, 22:03)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to go on record stating that I totally disagree with all of these claims that knowing that a model is "multi-part" has any value at all to the average user. A model is a model is a model. Whether or not the author of that model chose to split it up into sub-models has absolutely no bearing on what it is. And any MPD can of course be flattened, which results in a model that is indistinguishable to the end user, but very different internally. Confusing users by having two separate file extensions for "ldraw models" is, in my opinion, a bad thing.
(2019-09-23, 17:14)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to revive this discussion. Everything Travis write above I agree with. I'll go one step further in saying unless someone can come up with a really good reason why we shouldn't retire mpd, then we should. There will be less confusion going forward (LDCad and Bricksmith all ready save mpd files as ldr by default) and existing mpd files will still work.It would make life easier for me as I do not have to arbitrarily decide when a file is an LDR and when it is an MPD. It can still be handles as a legacy format, like old Excel formats and such - only the conversion is trivial here.
(2019-09-23, 17:14)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]There will be less confusion going forward (LDCad and Bricksmith all ready save mpd files as ldr by default) and existing mpd files will still work.
(2019-09-23, 17:41)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ] the upcoming 1.6d
(2019-09-23, 18:43)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]1.6d ??? What happend to that 2.0 project with the new GUI? (Addmidately the new themes posted the other day are a giant leap forward). I still have plans to rewrite the MLCad tutorials for LDCad, but ... but only if ... you know how much I hate your menus.
w.
(2019-09-23, 18:43)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]1.6d ??? What happend to that 2.0 project
(2019-08-10, 20:53)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Are there any known programs that would load a file incorrectly if it's extension was ldr but was, in fact, a mpd? If not, I move to retire the mpd file extension and have all non-part files be .ldr
(2021-04-29, 4:04)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to simplify things.
(2021-04-29, 4:04)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]In light of this thread:
https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24589-po...l#pid41128
I'd like to renew my call to retire the MPD extension and to go LDR only for model files. All software that claims to be LDraw compliant should implement the MPD spec and there is functionally not difference between the two. Since it clear that at least some users are confused, I'd like to simplify things.
(2021-04-29, 19:22)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ]If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
(2021-04-29, 4:04)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]In light of this thread:
https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24589-po...l#pid41128
I'd like to renew my call to retire the MPD extension and to go LDR only for model files. All software that claims to be LDraw compliant should implement the MPD spec and there is functionally not difference between the two. Since it clear that at least some users are confused, I'd like to simplify things.
(2021-04-29, 21:04)N. W. Perry Wrote: [ -> ]If my understanding is complete, the reason to keep .mpd is that it tells the user at a glance something about the content of the file—i.e., that it contains submodels, or more specifically, subfiles, as reflected by the format's only metas (0 FILE and 0 NOFILE).
Is there a way to readily convey this information to the user other than by way of the .mpd extension?
Are there any other affirmative reasons to keep .mpd? (By that I mean reasons that specifically require keeping it, as opposed to reasons not to retire it.)
(2021-04-29, 22:02)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]I will repeat. What difference does it make to the end-user if the file contains embedded sub-models? I don't consider this to be a factor at all.
(2021-04-29, 4:04)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to renew my call to retire the MPD extension and to go LDR only for model files.
(2021-04-29, 4:04)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]In light of this thread:
https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24589-po...l#pid41128
I'd like to renew my call to retire the MPD extension and to go LDR only for model files. All software that claims to be LDraw compliant should implement the MPD spec and there is functionally not difference between the two. Since it clear that at least some users are confused, I'd like to simplify things.
(2021-04-30, 5:59)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]If I remember correctly there was confusion among the casual user that a ldr file could not only contain dat files, so parts, but also other ldr files called submodels. From an organisational point of view it should be handled like this:
dat - parts
ldr - single model
mpd - multiple models
w.
(2021-04-30, 5:59)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]If I remember correctly there was confusion among the casual user that a ldr file could not only contain dat files, so parts, but also other ldr files called submodels. From an organisational point of view it should be handled like this:
dat - parts
ldr - single model
mpd - multiple models
w.
(2021-04-30, 13:24)N. W. Perry Wrote: [ -> ]That would obviate the need for the mpd format.
(2021-04-30, 13:50)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]I'd just like to clarify: I'm not suggesting getting rid of the MPD format (that definitely needs to stay), I'm suggesting that we stop using the mpd file extension in an official capacity.
(2021-04-30, 15:19)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly. The mpd extension isn't going away nor will it be wrong to use it. Rather, LDraw.org will only recommend using DAT (for library files) and LDR (for everything else).Good thing. There are so many tutorials and tools using "mpd" that banning completely mpd extension would just replace one confusion with another...
(2021-04-30, 15:47)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing. There are so many tutorials and tools using "mpd" that banning completely mpd extension would just replace one confusion with another...
(2021-04-30, 15:19)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly. The mpd extension isn't going away nor will it be wrong to use it. Rather, LDraw.org will only recommend using DAT (for library files) and LDR (for everything else).
(2021-04-30, 21:28)N. W. Perry Wrote: [ -> ]Then it sounds like it would be fine either way. The only practical effect I can see is having to change the OMR spec to allow .mpd, but require only .ldr.
(2021-04-30, 5:59)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]If I remember correctly there was confusion among the casual user that a ldr file could not only contain dat files, so parts, but also other ldr files called submodels. From an organisational point of view it should be handled like this:
dat - parts
ldr - single model
mpd - multiple models
w.