Macabricks file storage question

[knotian]

Pardon my paranoia

Is there a way to save Mecabricks files on your own media?

It looks good and I'd like to try it out. I'm using Stud.io and love it but recent administrator posts about new features being available on the 'commercial' version has me bothered.

 

 

[Scrubs]

Hello,

No worries. So currently, files are stored securely on the server. I am thinking about a way to export/import none 3D files (a format close to what I store) but there are actually a good number of technical issues I need to solve first. If everybody was behaving online that would be simple but that is not the case. I need to prevent any damages when files modified outside of Mecabricks would be reimported. The other one is a solution to handle old files when I update the format. When it is all online, all of these things are seamless for users. Everything is working whatever update I make even deep in the system.

Otherwise, you can currently export in open 3D formats like obj, stl  or collada.

[SylvainLS]

49 minutes ago, Scrubs said:

files are stored securely on the server.

Famous last words #48. 

[Scrubs]

Come on man. You know what I meant. I am not a big company (and not a company at all) and I do it to the best of my knowledge. We are not talking about personal details and credit card numbers here. To date, there hasn't been any issues.

I know you are preaching for LDraw and Stud.io but let Mecabricks a chance for anybody interested in 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Scrubs

[SylvainLS]

59 minutes ago, Scrubs said:

Come on man. You know what I meant. I am not a big company (and not a company at all) and I do it to the best of my knowledge. We are not talking about personal details and credit card numbers here. To date, there hasn't been any issues.

First, it was a joke, not a serious critique.  I’m sure you do what’s possible for you (and to be sure I’m correctly understood: there’s no sarcasm here, you managed to produce a great tool and to offer reliable services, on a par with commercial tools).  The part I quoted is just the sort of quotes the jinxing fairies are watching for.

But all jokes also have an anchor in reality, so, considering your answer, I guess it hit a real nerve 

 

1 hour ago, Scrubs said:

I know you are preaching for LDraw and Stud.io but let Mecabricks a chance for anybody interested in 

I don’t “preach” (which I will take in the meaning of “recommend earnestly,” not “give a sermon”, as I don’t feel religious about these things), I answer questions, inform, and correct misconceptions to the measure of my abilities and knowledge.  I believe I have recommended people to try Mecabricks as often as I recommended them to try Studio (most often in the same sentence).

Now, it’s true I prefer open formats, like LDraw, and am very prone to recommend them but then, first, their advantages are facts, not opinion or creed, and, second, you should know that’s one of the many points I fault Studio for, on this forum and others: their format isn’t open, they modified the LDraw format with no documentation, and without talking to the LDraw community.

Truth is, I’m just like Grumpy (except for the beard, and the height, and being one who would try to be funny) but every “creed” believes I “preach” for the other one 

[Scrubs]

No offense taken. Your last post makes sense.

I spend so much time working on this software and the community that goes with, that I have to defend it a bit any now and then against misconceptions. The issue with stud.io is that it belongs to a company. So you would think that they have the means to innovate. However to a few exceptions, they mainly copy what is existing in LDD, LDraw based software and Mecabricks as well while using and abusing of something that doesn't cost them a cent - the LDraw part library - without really giving anything back.

[Stephan]

Besides that, Mecabricks offers high quality 3D parts. You are guaranteed that a 3D part is high quality when using Mecabricks.

[knotian]

Scrubs,

Rhetoric aside, the original question still stands. I am not interested in modification of the files, just safety. The format saved does not matter. The addition of a simple hash sum or check digit would insure the integrity of the files.

Ed

[Scrubs]

You will need to use the console in your browser. That is simple. Just type this and copy the output in a file on your computer.

JSON.stringify(GBLMenubar.toJSON(GBLScene.main))

[knotian]

Scrubs,

I'm sorry but what are the parameters in this instruction. I'm looking for the  destination name and address.

If this is working on the current file, then how do I specify storage file name and location

[Scrubs]

You just copy and paste the line above in the browser console when the workshop is loaded and the model you want to save is open. If you try it, you will see that the console output some text. Copy and paste this output in a simple text file.

 

I started another big rework of the scene graph to make Mecabricks ready for the next step. It will probably be only a click on a button in the future.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Scrubs

[supertruper1988]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:55 PM, knotian said:

Pardon my paranoia

Is there a way to save Mecabricks files on your own media?

It looks good and I'd like to try it out. I'm using Stud.io and love it but recent administrator posts about new features being available on the 'commercial' version has me bothered.

 

 

Can you give me a link to the commercial version posts? I am interested to read them for myself.

 

[knotian]

There is no post, it was in answer to a question where the mention " will be available in the commercial version" was included in the reply by admin.

[SylvainLS]

http://forum.bricklink.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=146&p=334&hilit=commercial&sid=fc9f4d483eb7932469e1374355786dd6#p334

http://forum.bricklink.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2077&p=5956&hilit=commercial&sid=fc9f4d483eb7932469e1374355786dd6#p5956

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by SylvainLS
wrong links

[supertruper1988]

18 hours ago, knotian said:

There is no post, it was in answer to a question where the mention " will be available in the commercial version" was included in the reply by admin.

 

17 hours ago, SylvainLS said:

http://forum.bricklink.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=146&p=334&hilit=commercial&sid=fc9f4d483eb7932469e1374355786dd6#p334

http://forum.bricklink.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2077&p=5956&hilit=commercial&sid=fc9f4d483eb7932469e1374355786dd6#p5956

 

Ok this doesnt bother me at all then. They have a free tool that they want everyone to use and it generates more bricklink orders, of which they get a cut of the money. Then they want to have a commercial version for folks to use for making instructions. It does not affect my work flow at all. I am happy to support more features and me being a paying customer hopefully gives my requests and needs a higher priority. 

[SylvainLS]

15 minutes ago, supertruper1988 said:

me being a paying customer hopefully gives my requests and needs a higher priority.

That it gives you a way to see were your requests are would already be great.  (For now, some bugs are acknowledged, some aren’t, and a few are said “fixed” in release notes.  No info in between and the acknowledgement is rather boilerplate.)

As for the rest, I’m not overly concerned either but there always seems to be a whiff of “hey, Leonardo used one of our brushes to paint Mona Lisa, we want a share of the Louvre’s entry tickets!” that I don’t quite grasp.

[supertruper1988]

4 hours ago, SylvainLS said:

That it gives you a way to see were your requests are would already be great.  (For now, some bugs are acknowledged, some aren’t, and a few are said “fixed” in release notes.  No info in between and the acknowledgement is rather boilerplate.)

As for the rest, I’m not overly concerned either but there always seems to be a whiff of “hey, Leonardo used one of our brushes to paint Mona Lisa, we want a share of the Louvre’s entry tickets!” that I don’t quite grasp.

I understand that tho. I have AutoCAD as a student but I cannot use it to produce a drawing for a commercial project. That costs more. 

Studio is similar in that they want people to design for personal purposes and order from the website. It will have a bunch of great features for that purpose. In order to support the needs of someone doing instructions or models for commercial gain, they want to offer more features tailored to that user type and they want to charge for it. 

More like "Hey, Leonardo, thanks for buying our brush and doing whatever you want with it" vs "Hey, Leonardo, you borrowed that brush and without it you, couldn't have painted the Mona Lisa so we dont want you to sell that painting"

[knotian]

supertruper1988

The features mentioned are not 'tailored to that type user' they are ones asked for many times and needed for practical use of the products. Paying for a true windows/multi monitor environment is not acceptable.

[Scrubs]

6 hours ago, knotian said:

supertruper1988

The features mentioned are not 'tailored to that type user' they are ones asked for many times and needed for practical use of the products. Paying for a true windows/multi monitor environment is not acceptable.

For once I will be on the side of studio. So basically, you mean that paying for a software is not acceptable? Do you know how much work goes into it? Love doesn't pay the bills 

[supertruper1988]

2 hours ago, Scrubs said:

For once I will be on the side of studio. So basically, you mean that paying for a software is not acceptable? Do you know how much work goes into it? Love doesn't pay the bills 

My point exactly. There is a free version that you can use all day for personal use. If you want to buy the features, there is that option too. Heck they could even just deliver a mostly bug free solution that I have to pay to upgrade every few years and I would be happy with that too. 

I would use mecabricks, if my goal was just building/rendering and not instruction making. 

[knotian]

I do not mind paying for a product. My complaint is that many of us switched to stud.io years ago when it promised to be a good product. The main requests asked for, over several years, by many people, among others, is true windows compatibility. At this date to find out we will have to pay for it is my main complaint. As an aside, with the poor performance of upgrades, I am wondering if they can even produce a competitive product that is bug free. Don't get me wrong, if it proves stable, and gives us the functionality we have been asking for I would buy it. If for no other reason than the learning curve necessary to switch.

The lack of use of the 'standard' library, is also an issue, as there is no way to tell how long it will take to get new parts.

[Calabar]

@knotian

what do you mean exactly with "true windows compatibility"?

Edited April 14, 2019 by Calabar

[supertruper1988]

7 hours ago, knotian said:

The lack of use of the 'standard' library, is also an issue, as there is no way to tell how long it will take to get new parts.

They use the LDraw Library so you can add any parts that are in the tracker and even those that you make yourself. Its very cross-compatible. In fact, for any of the instructions commissions I take, I do not use the built in page make. I only use the step editor to get the steps then export to LDraw and use LPub3D to layout the pages. 

[knotian]

I find that hard to believe, since all the parts in the library are not available to stud.io and there are constant requests for parts to be added.

[SylvainLS]

First, the LDraw Official Library is far from complete, even including the Unofficial parts.  For instance, at my last count, it’s missing 1278 parts that are available in LDD.  And that’s not accounting for patterns, just shapes.  (Those parts are available at digital-bricks.de but don’t use the primitives.)  And we all know that LDD is missing many parts too.

Then, there are many parts whose files are in Studio but that are not directly available.  It seems parts in Studio not only need to have connectivity info added but they also need to be added to some sort of white list for their appearing in the palettes.

IOW, the parts are there but there are not in the palettes.  Just put them in a LDraw (or LDD) file and import that file in Studio and you’ll see the part.  The part won’t have connectivity info, it still won’t be in the palettes for other models, but it will be there and “usable” (by copy-pasting) in your model.  And as neither LDraw files nor LDD files contain the complete 3D models (well you can with LDraw files but that’s not the default behaviour), that means Studio has them.  And you can also verify that by simply browsing its files.

See, it’s easy to have doubts and beliefs but it’s also quite easy to prove them wrong: just browse Studio’s files.