LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Parts we are Working on - Part Deux
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
(2020-06-16, 14:51)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]I thought I posted it already but can't find it again...
When I receive the parts, I intend to work on Ducati Panigale tyre, shock absorber and brake disk.
...and also 49736/49737 tubes, and 49577 seaweed/coral
Done so far:
Tyre and tubes
Seaweed done too. https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../49577.dat
Many thanks to Gerald for his preliminary work on this part!
(2020-06-27, 22:08)Alex Taylor Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed!  It's an error in the sense that I meant for there to be just two spaces, but presumably there's a bug in the PT's file-parser.

So, I'd like to review these parts, but I don't know what to look for.  Or what is an actual error.

Is the three space distance an error in the dat-files?  Or is there an error in the Part Tracker?


They look good in the PT 3D viewer, they "sort of" work in LDView, look good in LDCad, look good in LDFind and LDStructure.
I even checked them in MLCad.

However, DatHeader goes into a frenzie of error messages about  "TEXMAP END before TEXMAP FALLBACK" and "TEXMAP END before surface declared". I guess it's two messages for every line it considers to be an error.
(The same thing happens on 6092p01.dat)

I think the tepees and the base plate are missing a correct fallback surface declaration.
The geometry for the texture is doing double-duty here; as there is no vector-graphic pattern it seems a bit wasteful to duplicate the geom in a FALLBACK section.

As I said, the three spaces was a typo on my part - I intended to just have the two spaces - but as the spec permits any amount of whitespace between tokens, if the PT is having problems with this then there's a bug there somewhere.
(2020-07-19, 21:40)Alex Taylor Wrote: [ -> ]The geometry for the texture is doing double-duty here; as there is no vector-graphic pattern it seems a bit wasteful to duplicate the geom in a FALLBACK section.

As I said, the three spaces was a typo on my part - I intended to just have the two spaces - but as the spec permits any amount of whitespace between tokens, if the PT is having problems with this then there's a bug there somewhere.

There should always be a fallback, even if it's the same as the TEXMAP section. Maybe we need to explicitly state that in the Library Spec?

You are, however, correct about the spaces. There can be any amount of white space between numbers.
(2020-07-19, 21:45)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe we need to explicitly state that in the Library Spec?

Answer: No. the TEXMAP spec requires a FALLBACK section.
(2020-07-19, 21:46)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Answer: No. the TEXMAP spec requires a FALLBACK section.

The FALLBACK section is definitely not intended to be required, and in fact is explicitly stated in the spect to be impossible when using TEXMAP NEXT. If FALLBACK being completely optional is unclear in the TEXMAP spec, then the TEXMAP spec should probably be updated. When no fallback geometry is available, the FALLBACK section should not be present, and the untextured version of the TEXMAP geometry should be used instead. I don't think this is stated as a requirement anywhere, but perhaps it should be.
(2020-07-20, 0:03)Travis Cobbs Wrote: [ -> ]The FALLBACK section is definitely not intended to be required, and in fact is explicitly stated in the spect to be impossible when using TEXMAP NEXT. If FALLBACK being completely optional is unclear in the TEXMAP spec, then the TEXMAP spec should probably be updated. When no fallback geometry is available, the FALLBACK section should not be present, and the untextured version of the TEXMAP geometry should be used instead. I don't think this is stated as a requirement anywhere, but perhaps it should be.

Well that's 2 things that are ambiguous in the spec so I'll propose a rev later this week.
(2020-07-19, 21:16)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ]However, DatHeader goes into a frenzie of error messages about  "TEXMAP END before TEXMAP FALLBACK" and "TEXMAP END before surface declared". I guess it's two messages for every line it considers to be an error.
(The same thing happens on 6092p01.dat)

To clarify.
These messages comes from the program. They are not part of a review given in the program.
If I, after the last message try to view the part, the program will crash, and shuts down.
Working on 42107 Panigale windscreen and 42112 concrete mixer drum...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18