Retire MPD


Retire MPD
#1
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
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#2
(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

I agree that always using .ldr for non-parts would be good. Unfortunately, I have no idea if this causes problems in any programs.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#3
From LPub3D side, there is no dependency on the model file extension used.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#4
(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

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.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#5
(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.

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.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#6
(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.

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.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#7
(2019-08-13, 6:44)Willy Tschager Wrote: I wish LDCad had proper MPD support for import/export of submodels.

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.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#9
(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.

Roland,

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.

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#10
(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!
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#11
(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.
As already mentioned, I never thought I would become a diehard LDCad'er.
What has completely changed in the meantime, and I already regret that I did not change earlier.
Were probably the perfect MLCad tutorials from Willy. Big Grin
I am also completely satisfied with the program. Sometimes it is just whining at a very high level.
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#8
(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.

+1
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#12
I'm completely fine with having the mpd beside ldr and dat extension.
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
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#13
(2019-08-17, 17:58)Max Martin Richter Wrote: I'm completely fine with having the mpd beside ldr and dat extension.
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
+1...
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#14
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.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#15
You have a point...
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#16
(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.

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.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#17
(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.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#18
(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.

LDCad saves as mpd if the current (new) model has submodels, otherwise it will save new files as ldr.

I could remove that from the upcoming 1.6d to let it always save as ldr, or make it an option.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#19
(2019-09-23, 17:41)Roland Melkert Wrote:  the upcoming 1.6d

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.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#20
(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.

https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-23672-po...l#pid34043
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: Retire MPD
#21
(2019-09-23, 18:43)Willy Tschager Wrote: 1.6d ??? What happend to that 2.0 project

I still do bug fixes and snap info for the 1.6 branch. Hoping to get the 2.0 project back on track when my work projects are less demanding.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)