kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[easyw <easyw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oliver,

just an other point against it IMO:

If you develop a build on the fly 3D library, in case of update on OCE 
release, you would need to check and probably review all the models 
generated by your scripts...
As I already pointed out on GitHub discussion, STEP are not just 
rendering models... they need to be done with a geometry check to 
guarantee a fine mechanical result.

A static library is just as is... good a and reliable without any need 
to be re-checked or rebuilt once approved...

Why just rework what is done till now and for which kind of advantage or 
optimization?

Still my best option is to decide what to deploy with the Kicad 
installer and a dynamic downloader that will fetch and download only 
what is needed for the project.


Maurice

On 11/6/2017 11:34 PM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> Seth, for the STEP export that would be a better idea, I can look into 
> how to implement that in the kicad2step tool.
>
> Wayne, if you are completely against this as a feature, then I shan't 
> spend any more time on it, but:
>
> 1. I think it is a useful feature to have even if it is not the "right" 
> way to solve the current 3D library issues. That was only one motivating 
> factor. I still think it is useful.
> 2. In terms of "code clarity" - take a look at the patch set, I don't 
> think it will cause any issues for readability.
> 3. There are some bug fixes and code cleanup that I have performed as 
> part of this patch set.
> 4. If I can use the STEP format array_placement as Seth suggests, then 
> the internal representation of the exported STEP file will be improved
>
> Regarding STEP / WRL comparisons - That's a separate issue to what is 
> being discussed here. This patch works just as well for .wrl or .step 
> models.