TBs follow discussion on SR 3D Builder

[Conchas]

This topic was created to ease the discussion initiated at TechnicBRICKs, about the possibility to use SR 3D at later TBs TechREVERSE Challenges.

It also aims to help identify the necessary actions to take, to move in this direction.

The preliminary discussion, maybe found here.

[Conchas]

to make it easier, let me copy here my last comment at TBs.


@xSergio74

Yes, I see you use the ldraw folder by default. However was not sure if you used the same 'parts' and 'unofficial' folders.
However recently I experienced some problems using the 'unofficial' folder, and learned from Philo, why it is not always the best option to use a folder like 'unofficial' to store yet unreleased parts.
Lets say there are advantages and disadvantages...


I see the need to assign each sub-model into a group, to properly handle it at SR3D, as problem.
For instance all the submissions I've received to the Challenge that use sub-models, doesn't seem to have them assigned into groups.
I also found cases where the sub-models are recognized by SR3D and others not and parts seen individually.

This raises some issues, if we intend to use SR3D as the reference tool for further TechREVERSE Challenges.

Extensive tests needed as you mentioned. We can work on that.

[xSergio74]

Hi,
about using separate unofficial parts folders advantages and disadvantages, I found the following:
Pros:
- You cannot revert to official files if unofficial does not satisfy you
- You can experiment new parts
Cons:
- You have to manually configure MLCad.ini to search for additional folder (not necessary if using SR3DB)
- Povray may miss some parts while rendering unofficial ones

Actually cannot find anymore, but maybe other have different point of view

About grouping I can try to let SR3DB to automatically create groups according to submodel file found during loading MLCad models (not .MPD files!)

On the other side I don't want to force anyone to use my application: just think that it could be a valid and enjoyable alternative to MLCad.

Before continued I just want to remind a my application limitation of my application when used with povray:
Belts and flexible parts currently will NOT BE RENDERED since relative parts are not stored in a part file (like lSynth do), but are created and maintained in memory by the application. Only the parameters to create them are stored in the models.

Of course things can be changed in a next release of the application, but actually I prefer to spend the time in improving animations. Now I'm working on advanced steering system using bars and ball joint, and then I will dedicate a long period to manage pneumatics.

Sergio

[Conchas]

One of the problems that I experienced by using the unofficial folder, is that if required subparts or primitives are not found in the expected relative folders, LDView or POV-Ray will have trouble.
Basically the same as you described.

Your suggestion to let SR3D automatically group sub-models (if not already done by the author), seems also to me the way to go.
At least it is what I also imagined.

The limitations you described about flexible parts are also my concern. Of course SR3D is much easier to work and provides a much "cleaner" approach.
However the limitations to the external renders, are big drawback.
Maybe something for you to work, when you find the time and right mood.
We should have about 10 months, till the next TechREVERSE Challenge...

Of course you are not imposing anyone to use SR3D, but I also agree (from the first challenge) this should be a very good alternative to consider, as MLCad is almost stopped in time and is not providing perspectives of new developments.

LDD is a completely different story!

So, as you already noticed I aim to use one unique proposed tool, also used for the evaluation process. I'm not wooried however, if participants decide to use other tools, as long as they are compatible with the one officially proposed. Otherwise the only affected, is the contestant itself.



TechREVERSE should be also a good way to promote whatever tool we decide to support.



The day you have finished (or almost) all the functionalities you can imagine for SR3D, I think there are opportunities to improve the design and distribution of graphic elements on the UI. But of course this is a minor topic at the moment.
Also the application icon, is not distinctive and appealing enough. You should seek for less detail but a more eye catching logo.

Don't take me wrong. These are just some suggestions of mine.

[xSergio74]

As developer, I spent a lot of time in writing code and not enough to test the result in all perspective.
The result is that sometime what seems working in most situation maybe is not in many other.
The same maybe for the user interface: even it is good enough for me (really good when get used with), it maybe is not captivating and easy to use at first sight.
On the other side I have to admit that I always privilege functionality VS graphic aspect!

If anyone have a good idea for a logo of the application, well, let me have a look at it and we will evaluate.

Also any reasonable suggestions to the UI are welcome, but I do not intend to re-think it at whole.

byes

Sergio

[Conchas]

For sure you don't need to re-think it as whole, at all!
Maybe just some spacings, alignments, colors, etc.. here and there.

These are small changes you can even introduce here and there, at your frequent releases, to test and move back as the results prove or not.

If I come up with some concrete idea, I'll let you know.
Don't want to diverge more now, from the initial discussion, regarding where SR3D could improve to make it a first choice for the TechREVERSE Challenge.

[xSergio74]

You're right!

I'm currently building the 8066 model using my application and I will submit you as soon as I finished it.
A pair of information about challenge models:
- As submodel you intend all sub assembly shown in the instruction composed by 2 or 3 parts or there is a minimum of part to be consider a submodel?
- should the model contain all build steps as shown in instructions?

this just for testing purpose.
I need some days to complete the model. Hopefully at the end of the week

[Conchas]

I don't see the need of build steps in the context of the TechREVERSE Challenge, neither it has been used up to now.
However this is added value for SR3D. Lets say you could put it in the lowest priority.

There is no minimum parts for a sub-model.
The ways I see it, is according what some contestants do. They group parts of the model into sub-models for organization purposes. For instance, some have divided the model into: chassis, front axis, rear axis, etc...


I've added two of the contest entries, that arrived organized into sub-models.
Hope the authors don't mind, despite they are here not identified.

You can see the sub-models organization from MLCad.
Yesterday, when opening one of them (#1) with SR3D I was able to see one sub-model but not select any from its parts. On the other (#2) I was not able to notice the existence of sub-models.
Today I don't notice the sub--models in SR3D at any of them...
Don't what I may have done differently yesterday!
I must try again later, maybe I have better luck to sort it out...