 | | | | | | |
| |
|
My proposal for the standard orientation of all new elements being added to the
parts catalog.
LEdit/LDraw have a "standard" or "default" view that looks upon models/elements
from the upper front left. This is known as the 3D view (Esc|V|T will get you
there in LEdit)
The LEdit/LDraw axes are as follows in the default view:
Top Rear
(Y) (Z)
| /
| /
| /
|/
Right-----------(X) Left
/|
/ |
/ |
/ |
Front Bottom
Currently many of our existing elements, or even new elements being created as
we speak, follow no guideline for a standard orientation in the LDraw world.
Many Lego elements have no discernable front, rear or side... after all, some
see a 4x2 brick's front as being the 2x end, others will see the front as the
4x length. The only thing we tend to inherently agree on is that studs are on
top.
But there are elements such as windscreens, nose pieces, etc. that do tend to
be seen in a generalized Front/Rear orientation.
Wheels and Tires are another grey area since some (like myself) want to orient
wheels/tires to be pointing in the direction they would roll, so the tread
would be facing "front"... while others will consider the "face" of the
wheel/tire (the side with numbers or axle holes) to be its front.
My proposal is for all newly-created elements which have a discernable
Front/Rear to be oriented with that "Front" pointing toward the user in the
default view, running along the Z axis. In other words, the "front" of a piece
is at the lower left corner of the screen
I propose that wheels and tires be oriented so that the "face" of the
wheel/tire be oriented to the LEdit/LDraw default view Front. This means that
axles would run perpendicular to this "face" along the Z axis.
Here's an example:
Top Rear
(Y) (Z)
| /
| /
| /
/-----\\
/ 20x30 \\
| /-\ ||
Right--| | | ||--(X) Left
| \-/ ||
\ Tire //
\-----//
/ |
/ |
/ |
Front Bottom
I agree that all wheel/tire combos should be placed around the same point of
origin, but to extend that idea, I believe that ALL elements should be centered
at the world origin (0,0,0) unless some specific attribute of the element
reasons otherwise.
I agree that ALL orientation responsibilities should be placed in the hands of
the part authors. Terry does enough for us already. I think that improper
orientation of a part should preclude it from being added to the catalog during
the voting phase and corrections should be imposed on the author.
J
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Many Lego elements have no discernable front, rear or side... after
> all, some see a 4x2 brick's front as being the 2x end, others will see
> the front as the 4x length.
There is the word "LEGO" on the studs... we could orient pieces so that
"LEGO" is right-side up when seen from the front 3/4 view.
> The only thing we tend to inherently agree
> on is that studs are on top.
Not if you've read Karim's blurb about how he builds :)
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
with a little guidance from Todd, we've decided that this topic should be
addressed in lugnet.cad.dev... so please do not respond here...
this article has been reposted over in .dev so let's carry the thread there..
thanks
J
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
onyx wrote in message ...
> with a little guidance from Todd, we've decided that this topic should be
> addressed in lugnet.cad.dev... so please do not respond here...
> this article has been reposted over in .dev so let's carry the thread
there..
Thank you Lugnet!!! For the organization and civility. With the switch from
a single large newsgroup, we (AFOL) have been advanced light years in what
can be accomplished. I just had this thought when I read Onyx's message...
and wanted to mention it.
LINC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Linc Smith wrote:
> Thank you Lugnet!!! For the organization and civility. With the switch from
> a single large newsgroup, we (AFOL) have been advanced light years in what
> can be accomplished.
Good! Now someone can tell me what AFOL means. :-,
All Full Of Legos?
Anonymous Fulcrum Obligatory Lampshade?
A Fancy Old Lute?
Aardvark Finch Oriole Lark?
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@geocities.com>
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/5249/
"The world will not perish for want of wonders but for want of wonder"
-- British scientist J. B. S. Haldane (1892-1964)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> Linc Smith wrote:
> > Thank you Lugnet!!! For the organization and civility. With the switch from
> > a single large newsgroup, we (AFOL) have been advanced light years in what
> > can be accomplished.
>
> Good! Now someone can tell me what AFOL means. :-,
>
> All Full Of Legos?
> Anonymous Fulcrum Obligatory Lampshade?
> A Fancy Old Lute?
> Aardvark Finch Oriole Lark?
It's an abbreviation for:
Adult Fan of LEGO
It was coined by Matthew Verdier on June 14, 1995 in a post to RTL.
I use it from time to time because it's shorter than writing "Adult LEGO
Maniac" or "adult," but it kind of gives me the creeps too because it looks
so much like AOL (not that there's anything wrong with AOL).
Matthew also noted when he first wrote it that it sounds like "A FOOL."
Technically, since "of" is never capitalized in English titles, it should
probably actually be AFoL, but people tend to write AFOL since that's easier
to type. It was added to Derek Schin's guide to commonly used RTL acronyms on
August 12, 1995.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd--Where could one find Schin's guide?
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.general, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> > Linc Smith wrote:
> > > Thank you Lugnet!!! For the organization and civility. With the switch from
> > > a single large newsgroup, we (AFOL) have been advanced light years in what
> > > can be accomplished.
> >
> > Good! Now someone can tell me what AFOL means. :-,
> >
> > All Full Of Legos?
> > Anonymous Fulcrum Obligatory Lampshade?
> > A Fancy Old Lute?
> > Aardvark Finch Oriole Lark?
>
> It's an abbreviation for:
>
> Adult Fan of LEGO
>
> It was coined by Matthew Verdier on June 14, 1995 in a post to RTL.
>
> I use it from time to time because it's shorter than writing "Adult LEGO
> Maniac" or "adult," but it kind of gives me the creeps too because it looks
> so much like AOL (not that there's anything wrong with AOL).
>
> Matthew also noted when he first wrote it that it sounds like "A FOOL."
>
> Technically, since "of" is never capitalized in English titles, it should
> probably actually be AFoL, but people tend to write AFOL since that's easier
> to type. It was added to Derek Schin's guide to commonly used RTL acronyms on
> August 12, 1995.
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, johnneal@uswest.net (John Neal) writes:
> Todd--Where could one find Schin's guide?
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9639/rtlspeak.txt
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:29:34 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman)
wrote:
> I use it from time to time because it's shorter than writing "Adult LEGO
> Maniac" or "adult," but it kind of gives me the creeps too because it looks
> so much like AOL (not that there's anything wrong with AOL).
Not if you spell the abbreviation for America Online right, ie.
AOHell.
Jasper
| | | | | | |
