(2016-12-28, 14:55)Trevor Sandy Wrote: Very well. Your write up looks interesting.
On the post I linked, I hadn't really looked at Johann's update so If his scenario is different from Artius' then I will certainly update LPub3D if it is determined to be in regression. On the other hand, I clearly demonstrated that Artius' expectation was actually not the way either LPub3D or even LPub actually behaved. This position is demonstrated in the post I shared.
So. I am open to evolving the BUFEXCHG behaviour (while keeping backward compatibility of course) to make it more efficient because some users seem to be confused by the current behaviour (I get lots of request on the good pattern to implement). Moreover, the feature is quite valuable to producing hi-fidelity instructions.
Im wrapping up my x11 ports (Linux and OSX) so I should be in a position to take a look at putting this on the stack after that. Do not hesitate if you have any additional ideas on how we could improve this feature.
Cheers,
Great! I'll see if I can think about other things that would be nice to have.
One thing popped up yesterday already: with the current buffer exchange, if I store a buffer in the last step of a submodel, there's no way to retrieve that buffer without adding an (unnecessary) extra step. That's another reason a global buffer (vs a submodel-level buffer) would be nice.
Another example: a lot of Technic models use that pin-with-bush part. Often times, it's attached on a submodel not fully pressed. Then you place the submodel on the main model and you fully press the pins-with-bushes. With the current buffer, that's also not possible*.
I hope that all makes a bit sense. Writing clear texts is by far not my greatest skill
*unless you make a little hack and you create 2 submodels, one with fully pressed pins and one with semi-pressed pins. Then buffer the whole submodel with semi-pressed pins and then retrieve that one and swap it with the one with fully pressed pins.