(2022-03-16, 8:59)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Thanks for re-testing and your report.  This is would match the old installer's behavior.  The new installer should try to download version 17 of jdk and jfx.

Downloading the installer from my website (after clearing caches) should result in an installer containing this line:

Code:

curl https://download2.gluonhq.com/openjfx/17.0.2/openjfx-17.0.2_windows-x64_bin-sdk.zip -o "%mypath%\openjfx-17.0.2_windows-x64_bin-sdk.zip"

If there is still some "bitsadmin" or "13.0.2" in the file, I assume your download link is not the same as mine.   Did you use this one:

http://www.fam-frenz.de/stefan/ldiinst.zip

or another one?

(2022-03-16, 11:31)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: What does that mean?

One other informative question: what does CS stand for in the partslist?

• ofc / official: part loaded from a library tagged "official"
  
• uno / unofficial: part loaded from a library tagged "unofficial"
  
• self / selfcontained: part loaded from the specified file
  
• unrsv / unresolved: part is not yet being searched for
  
• miss / missing: part could not be found in the current context
  

(2022-03-16, 12:45)Stefan Frenz Wrote: LDInspector remembers where it has found information about a part and prints them in the partlist as origin. Possible values are:

• ofc / official: part loaded from a library tagged "official"
  
• uno / unofficial: part loaded from a library tagged "unofficial"
  
• self / selfcontained: part loaded from the specified file
  
• unrsv / unresolved: part is not yet being searched for
  
• miss / missing: part could not be found in the current context
  

"CS" is just "column selected file", and then there are C1, C2, ... as "additional numbered columns".

(2022-03-16, 12:49)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: Ok, in this case it is just good old brick 2x4 part 3001. How is that not official? I have a few other bricks that have that tag too.

(2022-03-16, 13:08)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Hmmmmm, this part should indeed be listed as official.   Maybe the part is inlined in the mpd? Or is the partlist created directly with a file that contains the part? Hmmmm. I'm not sure. If you don't mind mailing me your source, I would like to investigate how this came.

The tool tips will be added, thanks for the note.

• Added csv export of part lists on Item tab and PartList tab.
  
• Added complete export of table on PartList tab.
  
• Added sort options on PartList tab.
  

(2022-03-17, 8:51)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Thanks to Jaco's suggestions now there is a new current version of LDInspector. Main changes are:

• Added csv export of part lists on Item tab and PartList tab.
  
• Added complete export of table on PartList tab.
  
• Added sort options on PartList tab.
  

(2022-03-17, 8:51)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Thanks to Jaco's suggestions now there is a new current version of LDInspector. Main changes are:

• Added csv export of part lists on Item tab and PartList tab.
  
• Added complete export of table on PartList tab.
  
• Added sort options on PartList tab.
  

(2022-03-17, 13:41)N. W. Perry Wrote: Hmm, this broke my copy. I replaced the old .jar file with this one, ran my usual launcher script, and got this error message in Terminal:

Code:

Error: Could not find or load main class ldinsp.LDInspector in module LDInspector

Methinks I've just forgotten the correct way to install updates…

(2022-03-17, 13:45)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Yes, I'm sorry: the packaging has changed some time ago. The start class is now ldinsp.guifx.starter.LDIGuiStarter (so there is "guifx.starter." added and the class name is replaced and now reads "LDIGuiStarter" instead of "LDInspector"). The complete start command should be something like

Code:

java --module-path .:javafx-sdk-13.0.2/lib/ -m LDInspector/ldinsp.guifx.starter.LDIGuiStarter

I hope this brings LDInspector back!

• progress-indicator for large models (as in last mini-update)
  
• collision detection is multithreaded (not optimal, but faster than single-threaded)
  
• upgraded to Java17 and JavaFX17 (solves some GUI-problems)
  
• updated/fixed installer (Linux: j/jfx17, Windows: cleanup)
  

(2023-11-20, 7:53)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Thanks for your message.  I will add the license string I found in LDCad 1.7-Beta-1 as valid and preferred license:

Code:

0 !LICENSE Licenced under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 4.0 : see CAreadme.txt

I completely missed    the official change - and in the official agreement, documentation and examples I still find:

Code:

0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

(2023-11-20, 19:57)N. W. Perry Wrote: Unless the OMR will only accept full 4.0 licences going forward?

(2023-11-20, 7:53)Stefan Frenz Wrote: I will add the license string I found in LDCad 1.7-Beta-1

(2023-11-20, 22:54)Roland Melkert Wrote: FYI: default licenses hardcoded into LDCad are:

Code:

const char appDef_LDrawDefLic_CCAL2and4[]="Licenced under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 4.0 : see CAreadme.txt";
const char appDef_LDrawDefLic_CCAL4[]="Licenced under CC BY 4.0 : see CAreadme.txt";
const char appDef_LDrawDefLic_NonCA[]="Not redistributable : see NonCAreadme.txt";
const char appDef_LDrawDefLic_NonCom[]="Free for non-commercial use.";
const char appDef_LDrawDefLic_Shadow[]="CC BY-SA 4.0, see LICENSE.md";

appDef_LDrawDefLic_CCAL4 is the current LDraw.org official one.

I removed the 2.0 only one in 1.7, but it might still be in people's main.cfg

(2023-11-20, 22:54)Roland Melkert Wrote: FYI: default licenses hardcoded into LDCad are:

(2023-11-21, 8:06)Stefan Frenz Wrote: Which ones are valid for OMR?

(2023-11-20, 13:42)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I'll get the docs fixed.  They're due for an update anyway.

• Updated license strings.
  
• Fixed license line number detection.