| |
There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people
leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites. Questions
like "Why is it so and what can be done to get people back to Lugnet?" are
discussed.
Some say the just CAD related discussions there at Lugnet nowadays, and yes
they're quite right. But even that activity has decreased a lot IMO. The few
posts there may be read hundreds of times, but responses are few and from very
few people. While theme geeks may have moved to theme specific sites, were have
LDrawers moved? Away from LCad I'm afraid? And, worst of all, aren't there any
new people joining? Or is there some new, large and vivid LDraw discussion forum
that I'm unaware of? LCad is such a great thing, but do we attract new
enthusiasts, or are we even scaring them away somehow?
People complain about Lugnet.com being outdated and stone age and inconvenient
to access and participate in. I don't agree on that, but that doesn't help
Lugnet. And I think it's closer to the truth if it has been LDraw.org described
that way. I have never found LDraw.org attractive or easy to navigate, or even
to access.
What do you think?
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people
> leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites. Questions
> like "Why is it so and what can be done to get people back to Lugnet?" are
> discussed.
>
> Some say the just CAD related discussions there at Lugnet nowadays, and yes
> they're quite right. But even that activity has decreased a lot IMO. The few
> posts there may be read hundreds of times, but responses are few and from very
> few people. While theme geeks may have moved to theme specific sites, were have
> LDrawers moved? Away from LCad I'm afraid? And, worst of all, aren't there any
> new people joining? Or is there some new, large and vivid LDraw discussion forum
> that I'm unaware of? LCad is such a great thing, but do we attract new
> enthusiasts, or are we even scaring them away somehow?
>
> People complain about Lugnet.com being outdated and stone age and inconvenient
> to access and participate in. I don't agree on that, but that doesn't help
> Lugnet. And I think it's closer to the truth if it has been LDraw.org described
> that way. I have never found LDraw.org attractive or easy to navigate, or even
> to access.
>
> What do you think?
>
> /Tore
There are plenty of people still using LDraw and plenty of newcomers to it.In
some ways I think it's a victim of its own success. The software is well
developed and easy to use and the parts library is vast and easy to install. As
such people don't always need to ask as much about getting stuff to work.
I still get questions about it over on flickr but they are mostly PMed to me
directly. Without wishing to get into the LUGNET/not LUGNET debate I think you
might find more discussion with a dedicated and easy to join web forum. A lot of
the current userbase will not be members or frequenters of LUGNET but they may
join a dedicated LDraw forum to ask questions about troubles etc.
Tim
PS. And I agree about LDraw.org. You think it's hard to navigate from the front
end? Try it from behind the door ;) When Orion gets time to convert to a new CMS
I hope it will all be much easier for all involved.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people
> leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites. Questions
> like "Why is it so and what can be done to get people back to Lugnet?" are
> discussed.
>
> Some say the just CAD related discussions there at Lugnet nowadays, and yes
> they're quite right. But even that activity has decreased a lot IMO. The few
> posts there may be read hundreds of times, but responses are few and from very
> few people. While theme geeks may have moved to theme specific sites, were have
> LDrawers moved? Away from LCad I'm afraid? And, worst of all, aren't there any
> new people joining? Or is there some new, large and vivid LDraw discussion forum
> that I'm unaware of? LCad is such a great thing, but do we attract new
> enthusiasts, or are we even scaring them away somehow?
>
> People complain about Lugnet.com being outdated and stone age and inconvenient
> to access and participate in. I don't agree on that, but that doesn't help
> Lugnet. And I think it's closer to the truth if it has been LDraw.org described
> that way. I have never found LDraw.org attractive or easy to navigate, or even
> to access.
>
> What do you think?
>
> /Tore
Times changes and also the behaviour of the people.
The internet changes much quicker.
But I think the most important item is that LUTNET and also LDraw.org does not
make adverticements. So how should be people find us.
The new possibilities that are now available to each individuum are great. They
can present to their friends what they are doing in a comfortable way.
In my eyes the break began as BRICKSHELF announce to be closed.
At that point the people had to look for alternatives and they found. And the
alternative is much better for them as it is easier to handle. They don't care
for the negative aspects as nobody tells them.
I think there is no doubt that the user interface for LDraw.org is far away from
beeing good. But as all is done by volunteers it can not change fast.
I see LUGNET and BRICKSHELF still as "the source" for LEGO related stuff.
LDraw.org is a very special addon that did not have a competitor in the past,
but today everybody can use LDD. Here again the advertisement will surely draw
the attention to LDD instead of LDraw.org. And again nobody tells the people
what they are missing if they use LDD instead of LDraw System of Tools.
(Did you ever created photorealistic picture with LDD? Did you ever created
movies from LDD? Did you ever created good building instruction from LDD?)
The aim of LUGNET and LDraw.org is today the same as in the past and the aim is
still a good one.
I am sure that not all of the currently "hip" services will be present also in 5
- 10 years. I am sure LUGNET and LDraw.org does, as they are specific and not
mainstream. We have to update the user interface, no doubt. We should also link
and combine with the new services. But mainly we have to transport our benefits
to the people that are "newbees".
We need a marketing volunteer.
cu
mikeheide
|
|
| |
--snip--
>
> I see LUGNET and BRICKSHELF still as "the source" for LEGO related stuff.
> LDraw.org is a very special addon that did not have a competitor in the past,
> but today everybody can use LDD. Here again the advertisement will surely draw
> the attention to LDD instead of LDraw.org. And again nobody tells the people
> what they are missing if they use LDD instead of LDraw System of Tools.
> (Did you ever created photorealistic picture with LDD? Did you ever created
--snip--
> cu
> mikeheide
Honestly I don't think LDD is so much of a competitor for many people. Its
limited parts pallette keeps it quite restrictive. LDraw will always be the high
end tool for LEGO CAD due to its versatility and when people get frustrated by
LDD they will continue to turn to it. For example there are still many builders
who use LDraw to document their old models and they need the big pallette.
For LDraw now I would have to say that Brickshelf is probably not "the source"
for many (maybe most) people. The migration to flickr and MOCpages by newer
members has happened and BS tends to be a secondary source. I find 1533 pictures
of "LDraw LEGO" in a search on flickr and almost all of those will be from the
past three years. That's probably on a par with BS in the same time.
Times change but what draws people to LDraw is still there and drawing them.
They're just sharing in a more diverse range of forums.
Tim
|
|
| |
LDraw/LCad etc. are not nearly as dead as you think they are! The pioneering
days are long gone, and the package of tools has entered the world of
“mainstream software”. People simply trust everything to work, and will only
make themselves known when something doesn’t, which is very rare.
I know of at least 100 new users of the tools who, in the last 2 years, have
found their way to the LDraw site to download software and documentation, and
new users continue to arrive at around 2 a week. These are users who have taken
up my “Virtual Minibrix” package, which is built on LDraw. I’m sure if there are
this many users arriving through a “minority interest”, there must also be
plenty more arriving through an interest in Lego itself -- just silently.
Martin James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
| |
There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people
leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites.
|
This article
gives some answers to this question.
I think there are still as much activity on the subject as before. The activity
is simply divided but spread.
For instance, I’m amazed about the recent work by Sergio Reano (SR3D) recently
featured at TechnicBricks
To all LDraw contributors, from part authors to LDraw tools developpers, please,
don’t feel your efforts being useless - they’re in fact greatly appreciated.
Didier
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > What do you think?
> >
> > /Tore
>
> I felt you were preaching to the choir here so decided to broaden the questions
> and broaden the audience. Hopefully this will give us a bit of an idea of how
> the broader community deals with LDraw.
>
> http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-ldraw/
>
> Tim
1) Have you ever heard of LDraw? And if you have do you know what it is? Have
you ever considered using it but decided against it? If so why? Did you know the
parts are all designed by volunteers?
Yes, I have heard of L-Draw and use it quite a bit. I have it installed on both
my laptop and my desktop and own both reference books that cover the software.
I try to visit L-Draw.org every couple months to see what has been updated and
to keep up on the parts list.
2) If you are a user I’d really like to know what you use LDraw for? Do you use
it to document old models? To make instructions? To make nice pictures? To make
things you don’t have the bricks for? To design models you later build in
bricks? Other reasons?
I use L-Draw mainly when I don't have access to my physical bricks and want to
build. I travel a lot for my job so I often find myself with time on the road
where I need to relax for a bit. Sometimes I play video games on my DSi, but
often I find myself turning to L-draw to document new concepts or just as an
outlet for my creativity. Occasionally, I will also document old LEGO sets for
the Bluebrick software or do building instructions for some of my MOC's if the
mood strikes me.
I prefer L-Draw/MLCAD over LDD any day! I think that's mainly because I started
by using L-Draw/MLCAD back in 2003. I just haven't given LDD a fair trial as
L-Draw/MLCAD fills all of my needs at this time.
-Dave
ToT-LUG
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> People complain about Lugnet.com being outdated and stone age and inconvenient
> to access and participate in. I don't agree on that, but that doesn't help
> Lugnet.
I'm with you on this Tore. I sure I've said this before but I despise the flat
posting style of forums like phpBB and I like threaded discussions. Threads
allow the conversation to wander to 2 or more different but related discussions
while allowing a newcomer to make sense of it all. Since Lugnet has threads and
several other features that some people like (e.g. like NNTP access and
subscribe by mail) I take the "if it ain't broke, why fix it" position. If
enough noise is made in this regard, I'll try and find something that suits
LDraw.org needs but I will not support moving to a flat posting, bulletin board
style.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > People complain about Lugnet.com being outdated and stone age and inconvenient
> > to access and participate in. I don't agree on that, but that doesn't help
> > Lugnet.
>
> I'm with you on this Tore. I sure I've said this before but I despise the flat
> posting style of forums like phpBB and I like threaded discussions. Threads
> allow the conversation to wander to 2 or more different but related discussions
> while allowing a newcomer to make sense of it all. Since Lugnet has threads and
> several other features that some people like (e.g. like NNTP access and
> subscribe by mail) I take the "if it ain't broke, why fix it" position. If
> enough noise is made in this regard, I'll try and find something that suits
> LDraw.org needs but I will not support moving to a flat posting, bulletin board
> style.
>
> -Orion
Out of the thirty odd responses I've got so far to my questions on TBB there
hasn't been one mentioning ease of discussion so I'll hazard a guess that it's
not a big deal.
Tim
|
|
| |
My turn to respond:
IMHO LDraw is certainly not dead. In fact here in the Netherlands it’s is alive
and kicking. With me presenting it to the public at LEGOWORLD in Zwolle every
October I think there are many users who have joined since 2002 when I began
doing so. I ever so often get questions from Dutch users on my website and there
is an active topic on the forum of Lowlug. Many Dutch AFOLS are using it to
document models and create full instructions for them. The thing is that they do
not publish them or discuss at LUGNET but more on local forums or events.
However my concern would be this: imagine key people like the ones in the
streerco quitting, getting less time or worse. Then we'd have a major problem
like we had few years ago when LDraw was kind of dead due to the lack of part
updates. And I say "we" because LDraw is and always will be depending on
volunteers who put in their precious time for a great thing. And though I am not
very active lately here on LUGNET I still feel part of it.
On how to re-atract people to LUGNET I have no ideas, sorry.
Jaco
|
|
| |
On 2010-03-14, Tim Gould <tgould.lego> wrote:
>
> http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-ldraw/
>
> If you are a user I'd really like to know what you use LDraw for?
> Do you use it to document old models?
Hm, not really. But I see definitely the potential in doing it. Once I
start dismantling my old models (which, given the place and budget issues,
is only a matter of time), I will probably do this as well.
> To makeinstructions? To make nice pictures? To make things you don't
> have the bricks for? To design models you later build in bricks?
Yes to all of the above! The latter also (as someone else mentined) when
I'm away from home and need to put something "on paper" or check whether a
combination that's been on my mind for the last few hours actually works,
etc.
Needless to say (but it can't hurt), I very much appreciate the work you
guys have been doing on LDraw.
LDD is still not a real competitor in my eyes, mostly because the limited
palette, but also because of the limitations put to the ways bricks can be
put together (unless this has changed recently, I must admit I haven't
tried LDD in a while).
Cheers,
Matija
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people
> leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites. Questions
> like "Why is it so and what can be done to get people back to Lugnet?" are
> discussed.
>
> Some say the just CAD related discussions there at Lugnet nowadays, and yes
> they're quite right. But even that activity has decreased a lot IMO. The few
> posts there may be read hundreds of times, but responses are few and from very
> few people. While theme geeks may have moved to theme specific sites, were have
> LDrawers moved? Away from LCad I'm afraid? And, worst of all, aren't there any
> new people joining? Or is there some new, large and vivid LDraw discussion forum
> that I'm unaware of? LCad is such a great thing, but do we attract new
> enthusiasts, or are we even scaring them away somehow?
>
> People complain about Lugnet.com being outdated and stone age and inconvenient
> to access and participate in. I don't agree on that, but that doesn't help
> Lugnet. And I think it's closer to the truth if it has been LDraw.org described
> that way. I have never found LDraw.org attractive or easy to navigate, or even
> to access.
>
> What do you think?
>
> /Tore
LDRAW MUST NOT DIE
Ldraw user since 1999
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> And, worst of all, aren't there any new people joining?
As fas as I understand young people, it might have something to do with a high
proportion of text matched with a low proportion of visuals. It seems that new
generations prefer it to be very much the other way round. I've looked at some
sites aimed at young adulds, and for me these were rather difficult to navigate
through. This was due to an almost complete lack of navigation related text,
that otherwise might have helped me along. The navigation on such sites is more
like a Iphone or a E-magazine, you have to click on a pictogram or other image,
and behind that the item one looks for, is hidden somehow. My biggest problem
with that was, that I often failed to recognise the relation between the image
and the bit of navigation it was supposted to label. For instance, a trendy
picture of the building that hosted a venue represented the link where you had
to register/sign up for the venue.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jaco van der Molen wrote:
> My turn to respond:
>
> IMHO LDraw is certainly not dead. In fact here in the Netherlands it’s is alive
> and kicking. With me presenting it to the public at LEGOWORLD in Zwolle every
> October I think there are many users who have joined since 2002 when I began
> doing so. I ever so often get questions from Dutch users on my website and there
> is an active topic on the forum of Lowlug. Many Dutch AFOLS are using it to
> document models and create full instructions for them. The thing is that they do
> not publish them or discuss at LUGNET but more on local forums or events.
>
> However my concern would be this: imagine key people like the ones in the
> streerco quitting, getting less time or worse. Then we'd have a major problem
> like we had few years ago when LDraw was kind of dead due to the lack of part
> updates. And I say "we" because LDraw is and always will be depending on
> volunteers who put in their precious time for a great thing. And though I am not
> very active lately here on LUGNET I still feel part of it.
>
> On how to re-atract people to LUGNET I have no ideas, sorry.
>
> Jaco
I hadn't really thought about the pool of volunteers drying out but you are
right that it is. Even the 'new' names in key roles have been involved for many
years now. And for many years we have not needed an election for the SteerCo as
only 5 people have volunteered.
I put out a call for
<http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/15/volunteering-for-ldraw/ volunteers> to
encourage people to get involved. We have to make people aware that without help
the status quo will not remain so forever. Again I do think we are partially a
victim of success. It seems to run smoothly again now that the library updates
are back so people forget that there is stuff going on to make that happen.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > And, worst of all, aren't there any new people joining?
>
> As fas as I understand young people, it might have something to do with a high
> proportion of text matched with a low proportion of visuals. It seems that new
> generations prefer it to be very much the other way round. I've looked at some
> sites aimed at young adulds, and for me these were rather difficult to navigate
> through. This was due to an almost complete lack of navigation related text,
> that otherwise might have helped me along. The navigation on such sites is more
> like a Iphone or a E-magazine, you have to click on a pictogram or other image,
> and behind that the item one looks for, is hidden somehow. My biggest problem
> with that was, that I often failed to recognise the relation between the image
> and the bit of navigation it was supposted to label. For instance, a trendy
> picture of the building that hosted a venue represented the link where you had
> to register/sign up for the venue.
Yes, maybe it is a generation issue. I followed the link
http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-ldraw/ and I didn't like
what I saw. I mean, most of the replies were in deed positive and encouraging,
but the layout of the site... No tree structure but just a linear thread.
Scroll, scroll, scroll down to the latest post. Next time I visit that
discussion, I have no clue on where the last read post is. It feels like if this
is the future, then we're moving backwards into it. :)
But then again, Jesus once said the you cannot pour new wine into old bags so it
must be that same old well-known generation issue...
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Jaco van der Molen wrote:
> > My turn to respond:
> >
> > IMHO LDraw is certainly not dead. In fact here in the Netherlands it’s is alive
> > and kicking. With me presenting it to the public at LEGOWORLD in Zwolle every
> > October I think there are many users who have joined since 2002 when I began
> > doing so. I ever so often get questions from Dutch users on my website and there
> > is an active topic on the forum of Lowlug. Many Dutch AFOLS are using it to
> > document models and create full instructions for them. The thing is that they do
> > not publish them or discuss at LUGNET but more on local forums or events.
> >
> > However my concern would be this: imagine key people like the ones in the
> > streerco quitting, getting less time or worse. Then we'd have a major problem
> > like we had few years ago when LDraw was kind of dead due to the lack of part
> > updates. And I say "we" because LDraw is and always will be depending on
> > volunteers who put in their precious time for a great thing. And though I am not
> > very active lately here on LUGNET I still feel part of it.
> >
> > On how to re-atract people to LUGNET I have no ideas, sorry.
> >
> > Jaco
>
> I hadn't really thought about the pool of volunteers drying out but you are
> right that it is. Even the 'new' names in key roles have been involved for many
> years now. And for many years we have not needed an election for the SteerCo as
> only 5 people have volunteered.
>
> I put out a call for
> <http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/15/volunteering-for-ldraw/ volunteers> to
> encourage people to get involved. We have to make people aware that without help
> the status quo will not remain so forever. Again I do think we are partially a
> victim of success. It seems to run smoothly again now that the library updates
> are back so people forget that there is stuff going on to make that happen.
>
> Tim
Part of the problem is that there are not as many presentations being given and
general overall evangelizing being done at fan conventions. This is partly due
to the fact that the de facto spokesman of the organization, Tim Courtney, has
been focusing on his professional career (a correct choice in my opinion) and
partly due to the fact that the backup spokesman (me) has had very little time
in the last 4 years to devote to conventions. If frequent convention goers (or
anyone) are willing to give presentations, lectures, workshops, etc... I can at
least set them up with a slideshow and other things.
-Orion
|
|
| |
--snip--
> Yes, maybe it is a generation issue. I followed the link
> http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-ldraw/ and I didn't like
> what I saw. I mean, most of the replies were in deed positive and encouraging,
> but the layout of the site... No tree structure but just a linear thread.
> Scroll, scroll, scroll down to the latest post. Next time I visit that
> discussion, I have no clue on where the last read post is. It feels like if this
> is the future, then we're moving backwards into it. :)
>
> But then again, Jesus once said the you cannot pour new wine into old bags so it
> must be that same old well-known generation issue...
>
> /Tore
That structure attracted 6.2 thousand comments last year out of 8.4 million page
views. You may not like it (I prefer threading too) but it's here to stay.
And between TBB and flickr (same structure) there are already over 40 comments
about this issue. Contrast to here and you see where the future lies.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Jaco van der Molen wrote:
> > > My turn to respond:
> > >
> > > IMHO LDraw is certainly not dead. In fact here in the Netherlands it’s is alive
> > > and kicking. With me presenting it to the public at LEGOWORLD in Zwolle every
> > > October I think there are many users who have joined since 2002 when I began
> > > doing so. I ever so often get questions from Dutch users on my website and there
> > > is an active topic on the forum of Lowlug. Many Dutch AFOLS are using it to
> > > document models and create full instructions for them. The thing is that they do
> > > not publish them or discuss at LUGNET but more on local forums or events.
> > >
> > > However my concern would be this: imagine key people like the ones in the
> > > streerco quitting, getting less time or worse. Then we'd have a major problem
> > > like we had few years ago when LDraw was kind of dead due to the lack of part
> > > updates. And I say "we" because LDraw is and always will be depending on
> > > volunteers who put in their precious time for a great thing. And though I am not
> > > very active lately here on LUGNET I still feel part of it.
> > >
> > > On how to re-atract people to LUGNET I have no ideas, sorry.
> > >
> > > Jaco
> >
> > I hadn't really thought about the pool of volunteers drying out but you are
> > right that it is. Even the 'new' names in key roles have been involved for many
> > years now. And for many years we have not needed an election for the SteerCo as
> > only 5 people have volunteered.
> >
> > I put out a call for
> > <http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/15/volunteering-for-ldraw/ volunteers> to
> > encourage people to get involved. We have to make people aware that without help
> > the status quo will not remain so forever. Again I do think we are partially a
> > victim of success. It seems to run smoothly again now that the library updates
> > are back so people forget that there is stuff going on to make that happen.
> >
> > Tim
>
> Part of the problem is that there are not as many presentations being given and
> general overall evangelizing being done at fan conventions. This is partly due
> to the fact that the de facto spokesman of the organization, Tim Courtney, has
> been focusing on his professional career (a correct choice in my opinion) and
> partly due to the fact that the backup spokesman (me) has had very little time
> in the last 4 years to devote to conventions. If frequent convention goers (or
> anyone) are willing to give presentations, lectures, workshops, etc... I can at
> least set them up with a slideshow and other things.
>
> -Orion
I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
about my MOCs:
http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
I've been meaning to get it posted to the ILTCO database of presentations, but
ILTCO already has one foot in the grave.
Scott W.
|
|
| |
> I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> about my MOCs:
>
> http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
>
> I've been meaning to get it posted to the ILTCO database of presentations, but
> ILTCO already has one foot in the grave.
>
> Scott W.
You should add it to the ILTCO library. I can assure you that it's still used.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > Yes, maybe it is a generation issue. I followed the link
> > http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-ldraw/ and I didn't like
> > what I saw. I mean, most of the replies were in deed positive and encouraging,
> > but the layout of the site... No tree structure but just a linear thread.
> > Scroll, scroll, scroll down to the latest post. Next time I visit that
> > discussion, I have no clue on where the last read post is. It feels like if this
> > is the future, then we're moving backwards into it. :)
> >
> > But then again, Jesus once said the you cannot pour new wine into old bags so it
> > must be that same old well-known generation issue...
> >
> > /Tore
>
> That structure attracted 6.2 thousand comments last year out of 8.4 million page
> views. You may not like it (I prefer threading too) but it's here to stay.
>
> And between TBB and flickr (same structure) there are already over 40 comments
> about this issue. Contrast to here and you see where the future lies.
>
> Tim
I think TBB and flickR have an easier entry. LUGNET is a bit scary to sign up
to, and is certainly a pain in the but to remember your username (member #) and
password (is this even changeable). Actually, I remember it being a lot scary
to join.
The tree structure and searchability make LUGNET worth it. That, and the wealth
of knowledge contained in its history and active users.
Also, how would someone discover LUGNET? I certainly didn't ever put LEGO User
Group into any search engine. However, the main reason I joined wasn't for the
conversations about rotation matrices or any other LDraw this or that, but so I
could show off my MOCs for discussion. The other websites certainly have the
market on MOC discussion.
All of that said, without having joined LUGNET (and recording my username and
password), I would never have been involved with LDraw.
Scott W.
|
|
| |
> I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> about my MOCs:
>
> http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
<snip>
> Scott W.
That's an absolutely fantastic presentation! Even a grumpy old man like me has
nothing to complain about it.
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> about my MOCs:
>
> http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
I wish you could give that presentation at Bricks by the Bay...
(April 9-11, 2010 in Fremont, California - see bricksbythebay.com)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > If frequent convention goers (or
> > anyone) are willing to give presentations, lectures, workshops, etc... I can at
> > least set them up with a slideshow and other things.
> >
> > -Orion
>
> I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> about my MOCs:
>
> http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
>
> I've been meaning to get it posted to the ILTCO database of presentations, but
> ILTCO already has one foot in the grave.
>
> Scott W.
Thanks for the presentation Scott. I'd love to also see yours, Orion. I have
been in charge of presentations at the last two national AFOL events in Spain
(HispaBrick) and will be for the next one. I prepared a short and basic
presentation about LDraw and would love to prepare something bigger for the next
HispaBrick based on both your notes.
Jetro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, William R. Ward wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> > I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> > about my MOCs:
> >
> > http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
>
> I wish you could give that presentation at Bricks by the Bay...
>
> (April 9-11, 2010 in Fremont, California - see bricksbythebay.com)
I'll accept two round-trip tickets and a nice hotel...just kidding. I'd love to
see it, but that one is a bit far for me to go this time. I'll be at BrickWorld
again this year, but even that is an 11 hour drive.
Scott W.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> > about my MOCs:
> >
> > http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
> >
> > I've been meaning to get it posted to the ILTCO database of presentations, but
> > ILTCO already has one foot in the grave.
> >
> > Scott W.
>
> You should add it to the ILTCO library. I can assure you that it's still used.
>
> Tim
It's been so long since I looked at it, I forgot about the copyright of the
images. I'll need to get some OKs first and give credit where credit is due.
That semi-truck is 99% Pierre Normandin's design.
There are also some personal thoughts that may need to be cleaned up, so I don't
step on any toes.
Thanks,
Scott W.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> Yes, maybe it is a generation issue. I followed the link
> http://www.brothers-brick.com/2010/03/14/the-future-of-ldraw/ and I didn't like
> what I saw. I mean, most of the replies were in deed positive and encouraging,
> but the layout of the site... No tree structure but just a linear thread.
> Scroll, scroll, scroll down to the latest post. Next time I visit that
> discussion, I have no clue on where the last read post is. It feels like if this
> is the future, then we're moving backwards into it. :)
>
> But then again, Jesus once said the you cannot pour new wine into old bags so it
> must be that same old well-known generation issue...
That's the sort of discussion forum layout that I've seen dominate every site I
use today, except for Lugnet. Lugnet surely went the hierarchical direction
because the best Newsgroup readers supported hierarchical views. Like it or
not, that's so 1990's.
One advantage to a linear layout is that it's easy to follow dozens of threads
from day to day. The site designers set these things up in such a way that when
you click on a thread you visited yesterday, your web browser automatically
scrolls down to where you left off yesterday. Very little thought is involved
here, as well as very little "clicking" of the mouse. Today's scroll wheel
mouse (or laptop touch pads) allow for effortless scrolling.
There are pros and cons to each approach, but the linear layout dominates
today's web pages. Also, Lugnet is stuck in the 1980's when it comes to writing
a post, like this one. Sure, I can manually type in "[b]bold[/b]" to get bold
text, but on a more modern site, you simply click on an icon to do this for
things like quotes, images, links, smileys, and etc. Today's linear discussion
forums are, in general, much more user friendly when it comes to posting than
Lugnet.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jetro de Chateau wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > > If frequent convention goers (or
> > > anyone) are willing to give presentations, lectures, workshops, etc... I can at
> > > least set them up with a slideshow and other things.
> > >
> > > -Orion
> >
> > I've been distributing my presentation by email, whenever I get someone asking
> > about my MOCs:
> >
> > http://www.scottwardlaw.com/lego/rb/ldraw_overview.ppt
> >
> > I've been meaning to get it posted to the ILTCO database of presentations, but
> > ILTCO already has one foot in the grave.
> >
> > Scott W.
>
> Thanks for the presentation Scott. I'd love to also see yours, Orion. I have
> been in charge of presentations at the last two national AFOL events in Spain
> (HispaBrick) and will be for the next one. I prepared a short and basic
> presentation about LDraw and would love to prepare something bigger for the next
> HispaBrick based on both your notes.
>
> Jetro
Here's the last version I gave:
http://www.pobursky.com/common/files/LDraw_Intro_2009.odp (19.3MB)
It's been a year since I gave it so it may be outdated.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
>
> I think TBB and flickR have an easier entry. LUGNET is a bit scary to sign up
> to, and is certainly a pain in the but to remember your username (member #) and
> password (is this even changeable). Actually, I remember it being a lot scary
> to join.
I very strongly second this. I've been lurking here for years now, but almost
never post, and never get involved, because of how awkward, old &
user-unfriendly LUGNET is. I think LUGNET is a huge deterrent to any potential
LDraw newcomers & volunteers.
Remi
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> >
> > I think TBB and flickR have an easier entry. LUGNET is a bit scary to sign up
> > to, and is certainly a pain in the but to remember your username (member #) and
> > password (is this even changeable). Actually, I remember it being a lot scary
> > to join.
>
> I very strongly second this. I've been lurking here for years now, but almost
> never post, and never get involved, because of how awkward, old &
> user-unfriendly LUGNET is. I think LUGNET is a huge deterrent to any potential
> LDraw newcomers & volunteers.
>
>
> Remi
I do realize the fact that LUGNET is a huge deterrent, but I just can't get into
my head why. Yes, I recall it was a pain to join LUGNET when I moved from the
mailing list that preceeded LUGNET. But I only had to do it "once in my
lifetime", since I'm only in it for the news. (I have no idea how my LUGNET
profile looks like, or what member number I have). I once logged into LUGNET to
set up which mail address those confirmation mails should be sent to, after that
I have had no reason to log in to LUGNET anymore. Simple as can be.
This Flickr thing OTOH, is a permanent enormous major royal king-size pain IMO.
I was "forced" to create an account to share some pics. It is connected somehow
to yahoo so I had to create a yahoo account too. A couple of moths later, I
wanted to share another picture but couldn't login to Flickr. So I created
another yahoo account with another Flickr account attached to it. This time I
didn't repeat my mistake with creating a yahoo mail account, but use my swipnet
mail address. Next time I had pics to share, I couldn't restore password
settings, so I had to create yet another yahoo and yet another Flickr account! I
think I have 3 or 4 Flickr accounts but can only access two of them.
Uploading and managing pictures to Flickr is another major pain. It looks
completely chaotic when I finally managed to reach one of my "photostreams". I
have tried to organize my pics in "sets", which I presume is the same as
folders. (Why then don't just call them folders???) But yet they show up on the
left side of the screen all in the same unorganized pile, regardless which "set"
the belong to. And there are "galleries" and "groups" and "archives" and I don't
know all. Now *that* is truly awkward and highly repelling to me, compared to
that one-time effort of signing into and then just simply use LUGNET, no more
fuzz.
Then I want to share the pics I finally uploaded. The links to the pictures are
not easy to figure out, and I'm not even sure they are valid or if they work
only for me as I am logged in.
I can't understand how anybody ever can call LUGNET user-unfriendly and in the
same time praise something as annoying and completely user-hostile as Flickr.
(Sorry I really need to do something about my temper...)
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
>
> I do realize the fact that LUGNET is a huge deterrent, but I just can't get into
> my head why.
> (Sorry I really need to do something about my temper...)
> /Tore
Heh, don't apologize - it's great to hear from LUGNET users why they like this
place! My view is about 100% opposite from yours ;)
Yes, you need a flickr account, but you need to join here too, which we agree is
painful. When you joined flickr, they were being acquired by Yahoo, hence the
dual account mess. These days, joining is a 20 second, 5 field web page
process. Easy. And totally standard across most of the web.
To be fair, a discussion on flickr's picture posting features is irrelevant -
compare apples to apples. Try posting a reply to Tim's LDraw thread, then post
a reply here. Night and day.
At flickr, you need to log in. That's an email address and password. But that
can be cached by your browser to keep you logged in all the time. Then,
navigate to the discussion & scroll to the bottom. There, you'll find a simple
text box. Type in your message, hit 'Post', and that's it.
More importantly, that's how 90% of comment systems on the internet work.
There's nothing special about it, nothing to remember (beyond login); it just
works.
At LUGNET, I have to find the post I want to reply to, then click reply. Ok so
far. Then I have to enter my Name, Email address and click 'yes' for the terms
& services. Only then can I enter a response. Then click Preview. Then click
Post. Then check my bloody email(!) for some silly, cryptic authorization
email. Decipher that, then either reply with an 'X' in exactly the right spot,
or click a link and then,and only then, can I finally post a message. Which
then takes minutes to show up. Heaven forbid you type either your name or email
address wrong in the initial posting - do that, and you get a cryptic, evil
'Server denied your posting' message.
Sorry, but there's no conceivable way LUGNET is easier to post to than flickr.
I think you've just been here too long ;)
Remi
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> Sorry, but there's no conceivable way LUGNET is easier to post to than flickr.
> I think you've just been here too long ;)
>
>
> Remi
Yeah, you're probably right. :)
I don't even notice that I enter "to" here in the Name and E-mail fields (the
rest of my name and e-mail is auto-filled by IE) and check that "I have
carefully read... blah, blah" checkbox; that has become a conditional reflex
over all these years.
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> > Sorry, but there's no conceivable way LUGNET is easier to post to than flickr.
> > I think you've just been here too long ;)
> >
> >
> > Remi
>
> Yeah, you're probably right. :)
>
> I don't even notice that I enter "to" here in the Name and E-mail fields (the
> rest of my name and e-mail is auto-filled by IE) and check that "I have
> carefully read... blah, blah" checkbox; that has become a conditional reflex
> over all these years.
>
> /Tore
The bottom line is that LUGNET needs to change how it handles users. At a
minimum the authentication emails have got to go. I'm a member and I use the
web interface so I can just log in and skip most of the annoying things (e.g.
entering email, "Terms of posting" checkbox, authentication email, etc...) but
for those who came after LUGNET stopped adding members, this is a huge pain.
I do, however, like the confirmation screen since I can fix spelling/grammar
errors that I missed the first time or add something that I forgot to include.
I also like the fact the LUGNET forces you to use you real name, no hiding
behind your anonymity here.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> > > Sorry, but there's no conceivable way LUGNET is easier to post to than flickr.
> >
> > Yeah, you're probably right. :)
> >
> > I don't even notice that I enter "to" here in the Name and E-mail fields (the
> > rest of my name and e-mail is auto-filled by IE) and check that "I have
> > carefully read... blah, blah" checkbox; that has become a conditional reflex
> > over all these years.
> >
> > /Tore
>
> The bottom line is that LUGNET needs to change how it handles users. At a
> minimum the authentication emails have got to go. I'm a member and I use the
> web interface so I can just log in and skip most of the annoying things (e.g.
> entering email, "Terms of posting" checkbox, authentication email, etc...) but
> for those who came after LUGNET stopped adding members, this is a huge pain.
Timely info! I'm in the middle of filling out LUGNET's (absurdly long) Member
sign-up page, hoping to streamline posting... but that's useless & dead? I was
going to suggest LUGNET make memberships free, push the donation requests more,
change member IDs from random numbers to user's email, blah blah blah. But is
that even possible?
> I do, however, like the confirmation screen since I can fix spelling/grammar
> errors that I missed the first time or add something that I forgot to include.
Agreed! I love Preview. But this is an easy win-win: just add a 'Post' button
next to Preview, don't force the issue.
> I also like the fact the LUGNET forces you to use you real name, no hiding
> behind your anonymity here.
Also agreed. But that need not change if LUGNET moves to a different login-in
authentication system.
I guess my biggest & most evil yet realistic question would be: is it worth the
effort needed to save LUGNET? I'd be happy to volunteer, but I can't help feel
that most of the world has spoken, and moved on...
Remi
|
|
| |
Remi Gagne wrote:
> At LUGNET, I have to find the post I want to reply to, then click
> reply. Ok so far. Then I have to enter my Name, Email address and
> click 'yes' for the terms & services. Only then can I enter a
> response. Then click Preview. Then click Post. Then check my
> bloody email(!) for some silly, cryptic authorization email.
> Decipher that, then either reply with an 'X' in exactly the right
> spot, or click a link and then,and only then, can I finally post a
> message. Which then takes minutes to show up.
I'm reading LUGNET through a newsreader - Outlook Express - which is the
same as my email program. I donwload all new posts in a batch (much, much,
MUCH, faster than loading web pages) and then I can read the posts at my
leisure, I don't even need an internet connection.
To reply here I just click the button "Reply to group" in OE, write my reply
and send it.
When I've gone through all the threads that interest me, and written some
replies, I finally go to my In-basket and reply to the confirmation mails
that have accumulated there.
Done.
I don't have to enter my name or email at all, I don't have to go through
any 'new posters read this first', I get the chance to correct a post before
it is really sent. When lugnet is running at it's normal pace (no spam
floods slowing email down) my posts appear more or less immediately after
replying to the confirmation mails.
Using another newsreader - XanaNews for example - I can get the additional
benefits of seeing threads where I've posted in a color of their own,
threads where someone have replied to me in another color, threads I've
categorized in any other way in a color of their own etc. And all
newsreaders can indicate which posts are new and unread.
In both newreaders I have a local archive of old posts where I can go back,
read and comment even if internet is down right now (or the lugnet server is
not responding).
Just perfect, and much more bandwidth friendly than web pages.
People who have never used a newsreader don't know what they are missing
when they click their fingers sore on web 'forums'.
--
Anders Isaksson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> I guess my biggest & most evil yet realistic question would be: is it worth the
> effort needed to save LUGNET? I'd be happy to volunteer, but I can't help feel
> that most of the world has spoken, and moved on...
>
>
> Remi
I am very tempted to change the subject line of this branch of the discussion
tree into "The future of LUGNET?". I know, it was mostly my "fault" the this
thread changed subjects. But to me, it's the strength of the tree structure.
Then anyone who's just interested in the future of LDraw wouldn't have to read
these posts. And will be able to respond at exactly that thing written 20 posts
ago. If this would have been a one-dimention thread, a comment on Scott
Wardlaw's PowerPoint presentation here would be as good as off-topic and
confusion.
But back to the future (hep!) of LDraw. Like I said, many have complained that
it's just LDraw stuff discussed in LUGNET. Just a thought: maybe when we discuss
all aspects of LDraw line format, color codes, rotation matrices, programming
language specific behaviours, different platforms, compability issues, and yeah
btw, one more thing about color codes (6 months later...), the tree model is
priceless. But if you present your latest MOC, people reply "Cool!", "Great!",
"How did you do this and that?", you reply "I used this and that part."... Then
the linear discussion model is maybe even to prefer?
- - -
Maybe LUGNET is best suited for LDraw and complexed cad.dev discussions? Maybe
it has been a bad thing mainly for the vitality of LDraw that LUGNET has been
deserted? Not LDraw usage, because I have already seen enough evidence that this
apsect of LDraw is very much alive and new users are attracted. I could live
with these tech discussions being moved to LDraw.org. But that demands someone
migrates the whole forum over there. Preferably with an archive of all CAD
discussion made on LUGNET. (What a job!) If not for any other reason, so for the
sake of LDraw, LUGNET News must be saved (and hopefully vitalized!) until we
have some other "hub" where we can discuss LCad tech stuff.
/Tore
|
|
| |
Hi again!
I've done some more Lego modelling! This time I'm playing with the Lego City
Police Car. I've created some renders using POV-Ray and I've put the LDR/MLCAD
files and various other 3D formats of the model on my website. See the following
link for more details:
http://www.pearse.co.uk/lego/models/policecar.html
I am interested to know if there is a known list of LDR/MLCAD files for each of
the Lego sets. I guess the logical place for this kind of thing would be Peeron?
I found some LDR/MLCAD files for some old sets on http://www.cubiculus.com. Is
there a more comprehensive/newer list anywhere?
Thanks in advance
Reuben
reuben@pearse.co.uk
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> Maybe LUGNET is best suited for LDraw and complexed cad.dev discussions? Maybe
> it has been a bad thing mainly for the vitality of LDraw that LUGNET has been
> deserted? Not LDraw usage, because I have already seen enough evidence that this
> apsect of LDraw is very much alive and new users are attracted. I could live
> with these tech discussions being moved to LDraw.org. But that demands someone
> migrates the whole forum over there. Preferably with an archive of all CAD
> discussion made on LUGNET. (What a job!) If not for any other reason, so for the
> sake of LDraw, LUGNET News must be saved (and hopefully vitalized!) until we
> have some other "hub" where we can discuss LCad tech stuff.
>
> /Tore
I'd see LDraw getting a forum system with most aspects of the bulletin board
system like user accounts instead of emails *but* having a threaded layout like
here on LUGNET.
I myself do not know anybody who uses LDraw or even LEGO for that matter. But
that might have something to do with my age rather than the other people. :)
-Santeri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jeffrey Findley wrote:
> One advantage to a linear layout is that it's easy to follow dozens of threads
> from day to day. The site designers set these things up in such a way that when
> you click on a thread you visited yesterday, your web browser automatically
> scrolls down to where you left off yesterday.
Err, how am I supposed to remember which "dozens of threads" I visited
yesterday? Most "forum" software seems pretty aggressive about not showing
visited/unvisited links.
I don't spend a lot of time in forums, but the only useful one I've found is at
forum.nasaspaceflight.com -- it has an "unread topics" page, so it really is
easy to find active discussions which have messages I haven't seen.
> There are pros and cons to each approach, but the linear layout dominates
> today's web pages.
Good thing LUGNET message pages have those "linear" links at the bottom of each
page, so readers can see threads the way they want. Now, if only there were
sticky settings, so members can set their view permanently.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Jeffrey Findley wrote:
> > One advantage to a linear layout is that it's easy to follow dozens of threads
> > from day to day. The site designers set these things up in such a way that when
> > you click on a thread you visited yesterday, your web browser automatically
> > scrolls down to where you left off yesterday.
>
> Err, how am I supposed to remember which "dozens of threads" I visited
> yesterday? Most "forum" software seems pretty aggressive about not showing
> visited/unvisited links.
>
> I don't spend a lot of time in forums, but the only useful one I've found is at
> forum.nasaspaceflight.com -- it has an "unread topics" page, so it really is
> easy to find active discussions which have messages I haven't seen.
Not sure which forums you visit but they must be unusually obtuse. Just about
everywhere I visit tells you which threads have new posts since you last visited
and an unread topics page.
--snip--
>
> Steve
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > Err, how am I supposed to remember which "dozens of threads" I visited
> > yesterday? Most "forum" software seems pretty aggressive about not
> > showing visited/unvisited links.
>
> Not sure which forums you visit but they must be unusually obtuse. Just
> about everywhere I visit tells you which threads have new posts since
> you last visited and an unread topics page.
Really? I kinda like to browse Eurobricks. Lots going on there, with
plenty of great pictures. Once I tried to help someone with lsynth and
then (I'm embarassed to say) I couldn't find my way back to that topic
the next day. Even logged in I can't seem to find a way to get anything
like this view on lugnet, which marks visited posts whether you're
logged in or just lurking.
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=*,-200&v=c
Am I missing something somewhere? It'd be really nice if we could have
something that combines the best features of lugnet with the modern look
and posting features of the newer sites.
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> Really? I kinda like to browse Eurobricks. Lots going on there, with
> plenty of great pictures. Once I tried to help someone with lsynth and
> then (I'm embarassed to say) I couldn't find my way back to that topic
> the next day.
Sorry, but I'm a little slow. Was it at LUGNET or Eurobricks you couldn't find
your way back to that topic?
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> It'd be really nice if we could have
> something that combines the best features of lugnet with the modern look
> and posting features of the newer sites.
I toyed with this a few years back:
http://www.phorum.org/demo/
-Orion
|
|
| |
> This Flickr thing OTOH, is a permanent enormous major royal king-size pain IMO.
I tend to agree with you... Anyway it may be OK to post images (though I don't
like the way we are supposed to browse them), but it's definitely not a place
for serious discussion, as comments are not searchable.
Philo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > Really? I kinda like to browse Eurobricks. Lots going on there, with
> > plenty of great pictures. Once I tried to help someone with lsynth and
> > then (I'm embarassed to say) I couldn't find my way back to that topic
> > the next day.
>
> Sorry, but I'm a little slow. Was it at LUGNET or Eurobricks you couldn't find
> your way back to that topic?
I have trouble navigating Eurobricks because it requires so much scrolling
and clicking on <next> links to find things. I mean, how do you find your
way to a particular post when there are 318 *pages* and you have to scroll
through them all to find something.
http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showforum=86
It's a perfect format for light browsing though.
Don
|
|
| |
Don Heyse wrote:
> Really? I kinda like to browse Eurobricks. Lots going on there, with
> plenty of great pictures. Once I tried to help someone with lsynth
> and then (I'm embarassed to say) I couldn't find my way back to that
> topic the next day. Even logged in I can't seem to find a way to get
> anything like this view on lugnet, which marks visited posts whether
> you're logged in or just lurking.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=*,-200&v=c
>
> Am I missing something somewhere? It'd be really nice if we could
> have something that combines the best features of lugnet with the
> modern look and posting features of the newer sites.
Maybe you're missing the 'login' part? When you're logged in you get a link
"View new posts" on top right under the banner.
You can also (when logged in) select the "Options" menu in the upper right
(although a bit lower than the other link) and there select "Track this
thread" to get email notifications (I think, I can't find any "My tracked
threads" anywhere, so I suppose it's by email) when something happens in the
thread - which is a bit counterproductive, as you'll have to read your mail,
see a notification and then go back to Eurobricks to read the actual
message.
Of course, you can also choose to get the posts mailed to you, and you can
probably set some other flags to make it inform you of the next solstice,
too...
--
Anders Isaksson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> > This Flickr thing OTOH, is a permanent enormous major royal king-size pain IMO.
>
> I tend to agree with you... Anyway it may be OK to post images (though I don't
> like the way we are supposed to browse them), but it's definitely not a place
> for serious discussion, as comments are not searchable.
>
> Philo
Group discussion comments are very searchable
(http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m=discuss&w=all&q=ldraw+tim). Image
comments aren't which I agree can be frustrating. And flickr is very good at
telling you where there is activity.
Which isn't to say it's a good place to discuss LDraw. It is not. The technical
nature of discussion here makes threads very important IMO.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Don Heyse wrote:
>
> > Really? I kinda like to browse Eurobricks. Lots going on there, with
> > plenty of great pictures. Once I tried to help someone with lsynth
> > and then (I'm embarassed to say) I couldn't find my way back to that
> > topic the next day. Even logged in I can't seem to find a way to get
> > anything like this view on lugnet, which marks visited posts whether
> > you're logged in or just lurking.
> >
> > http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=*,-200&v=c
> >
> > Am I missing something somewhere? It'd be really nice if we could
> > have something that combines the best features of lugnet with the
> > modern look and posting features of the newer sites.
>
> Maybe you're missing the 'login' part? When you're logged in you get a link
> "View new posts" on top right under the banner.
>
> You can also (when logged in) select the "Options" menu in the upper right
> (although a bit lower than the other link) and there select "Track this
> thread" to get email notifications (I think, I can't find any "My tracked
> threads" anywhere, so I suppose it's by email) when something happens in the
> thread - which is a bit counterproductive, as you'll have to read your mail,
> see a notification and then go back to Eurobricks to read the actual
> message.
>
> Of course, you can also choose to get the posts mailed to you, and you can
> probably set some other flags to make it inform you of the next solstice,
> too...
Also threads with recent discssion are marked visually as being such and there's
an Active Topics list available next to View New Posts.
I'm going to be a little stirring here and suggest that possibly many of the
same people demanding that others learn LUGNETs interface haven't spent the same
time learning the interface of other forum software ;)
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > It'd be really nice if we could have
> > something that combines the best features of lugnet with the modern look
> > and posting features of the newer sites.
>
> I toyed with this a few years back:
> http://www.phorum.org/demo/
>
> -Orion
This sounds promising. Doesn't seem very actively developed anymore, but then
it's used here: http://forums.mysql.com/
If you're interested, I've got some webspace where I can set up a test phorum,
give you full access to try out & play with. I'm also proficient in PHP, for
whatever that's worth. Usually handy with stuff like this.
Remi
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > It'd be really nice if we could have
> > > something that combines the best features of lugnet with the modern look
> > > and posting features of the newer sites.
> >
> > I toyed with this a few years back:
> > http://www.phorum.org/demo/
> >
> > -Orion
>
> This sounds promising. Doesn't seem very actively developed anymore, but then
> it's used here: http://forums.mysql.com/
>
> If you're interested, I've got some webspace where I can set up a test phorum,
> give you full access to try out & play with. I'm also proficient in PHP, for
> whatever that's worth. Usually handy with stuff like this.
Thanks for the offer Remi. I have my own personal webspace that I also use to
test out LDraw.org ideas and a server running locally on my laptop so I can
develop without an internet connection.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Reuben Pearse wrote:
> Hi again!
>
> I've done some more Lego modelling! This time I'm playing with the Lego City
> Police Car. I've created some renders using POV-Ray and I've put the LDR/MLCAD
> files and various other 3D formats of the model on my website. See the following
> link for more details:
> http://www.pearse.co.uk/lego/models/policecar.html
>
> I am interested to know if there is a known list of LDR/MLCAD files for each of
> the Lego sets. I guess the logical place for this kind of thing would be Peeron?
> I found some LDR/MLCAD files for some old sets on http://www.cubiculus.com. Is
> there a more comprehensive/newer list anywhere?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Reuben
> reuben@pearse.co.uk
Maybe you are just looking for mpd files for official files? Then please try
http://mikeheide.kilu.de/html/index.htm. There are more than 900 mpd files for
download from official sets. I did not remember how good they are (maybe missing
parts at the time I build).
cu
mikeheide
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
| |
I’m reading LUGNET through a newsreader - Outlook Express - which is the
same as my email program. I donwload all new posts in a batch (much, much,
MUCH, faster than loading web pages) and then I can read the posts at my
leisure, I don’t even need an internet connection.
|
goodness of newsreaders deleted to save space
While true, most newer Internet users don’t have a clue what a Newsreader is.
That’s because Newsreaders are mostly used by Usenet users and Usenet (at least
the groups I read) is dying. In fact, rec.toys.lego pretty much died when
Lugnet was formed. Clinging to a Newsreader is great for older users like you
and I, but it’s an uphill battle for newer Internet users.
| |
People who have never used a newsreader don’t know what they are missing
when they click their fingers sore on web ‘forums’.
|
Yet those same web ‘forums’ are exploding with new users as Usenet newsgroups
are dying every day.
Jeff
p.s. Just playing devil’s advocate here since I still use my Newsreader every
day too. Even so, most of the online forums I read and post to are Web based.
Actually, they’re all web based with the notable exception of Lugnet and one
email list to which I’m still subscribed.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> Sorry, but there's no conceivable way LUGNET is easier to post to than flickr.
You must have done something to make it that hard for you to use Lugnet. I just
click "Reply", write my response, click "Preview" and "Post". Everything else
is already filled out.
Play well,
Jacob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> > Sorry, but there's no conceivable way LUGNET is easier to post to than
> > flickr.
>
> You must have done something to make it that hard for you to use Lugnet.
> I just click "Reply", write my response, click "Preview" and "Post".
> Everything else is already filled out.
Hmmm, did you click "Reply" so quickly that you missed the very next
sentence in the previous post where it said, "I think you've just been
here too long"?
Like many of us, you've been here forever. So perhaps you don't realize
that it's currently impossible for new folks to sign up here and get access
to the quick n easy reply method that the old timers enjoy. That, more than
anything else, is why this place currently a ghost town.
Have fun, and if you forget your lugnet password, don't ever get a new
computer...
Don
|
|
| |
--snip--
> Like many of us, you've been here forever. So perhaps you don't realize
> that it's currently impossible for new folks to sign up here and get access
> to the quick n easy reply method that the old timers enjoy. That, more than
> anything else, is why this place currently a ghost town.
>
> Have fun, and if you forget your lugnet password, don't ever get a new
> computer...
>
> Don
I must admit that I hadn't realised it was so hard to post now. That, IMO, means
we need somewhere new to discuss LDraw. If new people can't easily post in
discussions then we are killing fresh discussion and that is a very bad move.
Tim
|
|
| |
For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and
I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's
L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do
that's Lego CAD-related (apocryphal or otherwise) starts in LEdit.
Anyone who knows me knows that my particular brand-loyalty makes me a bit of an
outsider in this community, and that's fair. However, speaking as an outsider,
I can say that one thing that has really soured me on LDraw in recent years is
the seemingly obsessive lawyer-ization of it, to the point that it's become less
of an exercise in Lego design and more a monument to hyper-legalism and
over-compartmentalized classification.
I don't have a specific example ready at hand, but I believe that a basic 2x4
brick might conceivably have 18 lines of actual code and 36 lines of why's and
wherefore's and provisos. However necessary this can be argued to be, I find it
distasteful, and a sharp diversion from what I have always perceived to be the
project's original value. This, coupled with a years-long drought of new LDraw
parts, has made it seem as though the primary goal was to create a system of
attribution which, by the way, could also be used to build virtual Lego models.
I think that I only interacted with James on one occasion (on RTL); others here
knew him much better and were in on the ground floor of LEdit long before I
showed up at the party in late 1997, so I don't presume to understand his vision
better than anyone else.
I'm also not flaming anybody, nor am I claiming special insight as to what would
work "better" than the current scheme. However, if we're asking why people have
drifted from the LDraw portion of the hobby, then it seems to me that part of
the answer must address the rigidity that's taken hold in the past few years,
and we must ask if it was worthwhile, even if we accept that it was necessary.
My $0.02.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and
> I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's
> L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do
> that's Lego CAD-related (apocryphal or otherwise) starts in LEdit.
LEdit's pretty much outdated these days. It doesn't support the LDConfig
colours, nor can it edit MPD:s and the LSC is not taking it too seriously when
making choices. (at least I'm not..)
> Anyone who knows me knows that my particular brand-loyalty makes me a bit of an
> outsider in this community, and that's fair. However, speaking as an outsider,
> I can say that one thing that has really soured me on LDraw in recent years is
> the seemingly obsessive lawyer-ization of it, to the point that it's become less
> of an exercise in Lego design and more a monument to hyper-legalism and
> over-compartmentalized classification.
>
> I don't have a specific example ready at hand, but I believe that a basic 2x4
> brick might conceivably have 18 lines of actual code and 36 lines of why's and
> wherefore's and provisos. However necessary this can be argued to be, I find it
> distasteful, and a sharp diversion from what I have always perceived to be the
> project's original value. This, coupled with a years-long drought of new LDraw
> parts, has made it seem as though the primary goal was to create a system of
> attribution which, by the way, could also be used to build virtual Lego models.
I agree here partially. I too think that some bits here are bit too formal...
but I tend to think that !HISTORY lines are pretty much useful to keep track on
what's happened and when.. but something that I can't possibly understand is
that if a part author completely remakes a part and gets it to the tracker, the
rewrite must be a !HISTORY line and the author cannot get the Author line!
Really de-motivating...
> I think that I only interacted with James on one occasion (on RTL); others here
> knew him much better and were in on the ground floor of LEdit long before I
> showed up at the party in late 1997, so I don't presume to understand his vision
> better than anyone else.
>
> I'm also not flaming anybody, nor am I claiming special insight as to what would
> work "better" than the current scheme. However, if we're asking why people have
> drifted from the LDraw portion of the hobby, then it seems to me that part of
> the answer must address the rigidity that's taken hold in the past few years,
> and we must ask if it was worthwhile, even if we accept that it was necessary.
>
> My $0.02.
>
> Dave!
-Santeri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and
> > I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's
> > L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do
> > that's Lego CAD-related (apocryphal or otherwise) starts in LEdit.
> LEdit's pretty much outdated these days. It doesn't support the LDConfig
> colours, nor can it edit MPD:s and the LSC is not taking it too seriously when
> making choices. (at least I'm not..)
That's 100% fair, and I wouldn't expect them to base any policy decisions on a
platform that hasn't changed in 13+ years. The number of people who still use
it as their primary interface can probably be counted on one hand.
The main reason that I stick with it is that I'm comfortable using it, and I can
do in it pretty much everything I need to do, LDraw-wise. I've tried MLCad, but
it just hasn't captured me.
> I agree here partially. I too think that some bits here are bit too formal...
> but I tend to think that !HISTORY lines are pretty much useful to keep track on
> what's happened and when..
I don't know. At the user end of it, I don't see how this information is of any
value at all 99% of the time, except maybe as trivia. And even when it *is*
useful, it has the potential to become bogged down.
I recall a time not so long ago when people campaigned passionately for the most
parsimonious part-designs, on the basis that it makes the processing faster.
Since that time, the basic, default format for even the most basic bricks in the
inventory has expanded hugely, in some cases with little or no visible
improvement to part-utility.
Dave!
|
|
| |
> I agree here partially. I too think that some bits here are bit too formal...
> but I tend to think that !HISTORY lines are pretty much useful to keep track on
> what's happened and when.. but something that I can't possibly understand is
> that if a part author completely remakes a part and gets it to the tracker, the
> rewrite must be a !HISTORY line and the author cannot get the Author line!
> Really de-motivating...
Is it really...??? Anyway, the average LDraw user will never see the Author line
or the History ones!
I definitely don't subscribe to the all legalese line we see today (in LDraw or
in real life!). To me, it's just something that must be done. Fortunately there
are tools to manage this (Datheader). So it is and remains a hobby (and an
addictive one!)
Philo
|
|
| |
--snip--
> I don't know. At the user end of it, I don't see how this information is of any
> value at all 99% of the time, except maybe as trivia. And even when it *is*
> useful, it has the potential to become bogged down.
>
> I recall a time not so long ago when people campaigned passionately for the most
> parsimonious part-designs, on the basis that it makes the processing faster.
> Since that time, the basic, default format for even the most basic bricks in the
> inventory has expanded hugely, in some cases with little or no visible
> improvement to part-utility.
>
> Dave!
Please excuse ne while I become really blunt ;)
That information isn't there for the end users. It's there for the people
volunteering their time to make the parts. As Philo said it's very easy to add
automatically with DATHeader and thus next to no effort for the parts editors
but it is a good source of credit for those that have donated their time.
Likewise the legal issues may seem superfluous but with the new license the
parts library is finally legally able to be used and distributed in a more
verstile way. That's a good thing.
The trick for the parts library is finding a balance between parts that are
perfect for the user (including being consistent) and parts that are easy to
develop. _Possibly_ there is too much focus on the former but it's got little to
do with the mostly non-issues you raise.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> That information isn't there for the end users. It's there for the people
> volunteering their time to make the parts. As Philo said it's very easy to add
> automatically with DATHeader and thus next to no effort for the parts editors
> but it is a good source of credit for those that have donated their time.
>
> Likewise the legal issues may seem superfluous but with the new license the
> parts library is finally legally able to be used and distributed in a more
> verstile way. That's a good thing.
>
> The trick for the parts library is finding a balance between parts that are
> perfect for the user (including being consistent) and parts that are easy to
> develop. _Possibly_ there is too much focus on the former but it's got little to
> do with the mostly non-issues you raise.
Non-issues to you, perhaps. To an outsider, they are symptomatic of a big
exercise in narcissism.
Decades ago, when I was without a tv but hoping to see the "Spock" episode of
ST:TNG, a friend and I went to Penn State's Star Trek club. They had a meeting
starting one hour before the episode was to air, and we opted to attend the
meeting so that we wouldn't just seem like parasites showing up simply to mooch
their tv.
Well, that one-hour meeting was spent arguing about whether or not the
Enterprise-D on the group's letterhead should be facing to the left or to the
right. After two minutes it was comically preposterous. After forty-five
minutes it was unbearable.
I'm sure that the reasons for the letterhead argument were many and subtle and
well-justified. But to someone watching from the outside, it made the group a
geeky caricature, even to the geek who didn't have his own tv!
I'm not diminishing the efforts of the parts authors, nor am I writing this out
of thin air; I've personally authored well over 1,000 parts that will never be
included in the LDraw library. That is, I *know* how difficult the authoring
process can be.
I've spoken with at least three other people who find the hyper-legalistic
process equally off-putting, and I'm confident that we're not the only four who
think so. Part of the question in the OP was about why people have drifted
away, and I've given an answer.
You may dismiss it as a non-issue if you wish.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> > I agree here partially. I too think that some bits here are bit too formal...
> > but I tend to think that !HISTORY lines are pretty much useful to keep track on
> > what's happened and when.. but something that I can't possibly understand is
> > that if a part author completely remakes a part and gets it to the tracker, the
> > rewrite must be a !HISTORY line and the author cannot get the Author line!
> > Really de-motivating...
>
> Is it really...???
I more meant that it de-motivates me from remaking parts if I don't get the
proper credit for them! I'm a human being - I want credit for what I do. But
maybe "de-motivating" is the bad word for it. Maybe "annoying" is better there.
But I just can't see the point in it. If you make a part from scratch - be that
a new one or something that has been on the parts tracker before - it hasn't had
former history. So why can't the history then be wiped out? Even more, we
already wipe the history when remaking Non-CA parts.
> Anyway, the average LDraw user will never see the Author line or the History ones!
>
> I definitely don't subscribe to the all legalese line we see today (in LDraw or
> in real life!).
Ditto. I hate legal stuff. The world would be a better place without it.
> To me, it's just something that must be done. Fortunately there
> are tools to manage this (Datheader). So it is and remains a hobby (and an
> addictive one!)
Indeed. But the problem for me is that most parts I have around are either
Bionicle parts which are difficult to author or generic Technic parts that have
already been modeled. So the hobby is challenging for me.
>
> Philo
-Santeri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
>
> > That information isn't there for the end users. It's there for the people
> > volunteering their time to make the parts. As Philo said it's very easy to add
> > automatically with DATHeader and thus next to no effort for the parts editors
> > but it is a good source of credit for those that have donated their time.
> >
> > Likewise the legal issues may seem superfluous but with the new license the
> > parts library is finally legally able to be used and distributed in a more
> > verstile way. That's a good thing.
> >
> > The trick for the parts library is finding a balance between parts that are
> > perfect for the user (including being consistent) and parts that are easy to
> > develop. _Possibly_ there is too much focus on the former but it's got little to
> > do with the mostly non-issues you raise.
>
> Non-issues to you, perhaps. To an outsider, they are symptomatic of a big
> exercise in narcissism.
Possibly so but I'm of the opinion that those that make and share the parts are
entitled to some narcissism. And I speak having done minimal part authoring in
quite some time (due to laziness) so it's not self-interest at work.
--snip--
Your analogy isn't really a fair one IMO as the ST club is not actually creating
anything for others to use. I see your point but I'm not sure it entirely
applies here.
> I'm not diminishing the efforts of the parts authors, nor am I writing this out
> of thin air; I've personally authored well over 1,000 parts that will never be
> included in the LDraw library. That is, I *know* how difficult the authoring
> process can be.
But how much of that difficulty stems from making the part and how much comes
from filling in a few lines in the header? I've authored a bunch of parts myself
(both easy and hard) and I've simply never had trouble (well OK I have but Chris
has fixed them on the Part Tracker).
> I've spoken with at least three other people who find the hyper-legalistic
> process equally off-putting, and I'm confident that we're not the only four who
> think so. Part of the question in the OP was about why people have drifted
> away, and I've given an answer.
>
> You may dismiss it as a non-issue if you wish.
I shall continue to do so I'm afraid until I understand why it's an issue. As I
said above I just don't understand why a few lines in a header make such a big
difference. And I'm honestly not being obtuse here either. I'm ready to change
my opinion if I understand and agree with what you're saying. I feel I must be
missing something.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > You may dismiss it as a non-issue if you wish.
>
> I shall continue to do so I'm afraid until I understand why it's an issue. As I
> said above I just don't understand why a few lines in a header make such a big
> difference. And I'm honestly not being obtuse here either. I'm ready to change
> my opinion if I understand and agree with what you're saying. I feel I must be
> missing something.
>
> Tim
It is an issue IMO. Probably a small one compared to other ones, but it's the
sum of real or subjective obstacles that makes me worried about recruiting new
LDraw authors.
What I believe is the biggest issue is nobody's fault: All the easy, "basic"
parts are already made, and the new parts LEGO makes are very hard to LDraw. One
of my first parts, maybe the very first one, was 31.dat, Classic Window 3x2. I
looked at the 2x2 I believe, manipulted it a little here and a little there and
noticed the changes it made. That was a challange in the just right level for me
as a newbie.
When my first LDraw parts were officialized, I think it was by JJ himself(?), it
was probably too fast and too easy. There were obvious flaws that was either
overlooked with or missed. But we only had original LDraw to review them in, and
they looked ok there, so...
Today it is the opposite way. Parts are held hostage in the Tracker for years
and I have been both annoyed and discouraged from the reasons that my and other
authors' parts are being held.
On top of everything, the growing part headers have a highly psychlogical
impact. No matter if there is a DatHeader utility to support me as an author. If
I as an "LDraw veteran" get the feeling that this is impossible, I can never
write a header that complies to all those rules - how much more would a newbie
be discouraged? No matter what the crew who has added the rules, one by one and
after discussions, think: it really is repellant. I can imagine a newbie wanting
to become a part author. He or she will not get to business at once with the
line types that makes something happen in the renderer, but will likely try to
understand the meaning of the header lines first.
One thing that strikes me is that all header lines are cheerfully ignored by the
LCad programs except the BFC Certify line. They are in a sense "useless" for the
output image. I mean that the picture would look exactly the same without all
the header lines. I'm *not* saying that we should ban all header lines to make
newbies feel better to join the part author's guild. It's just a thought worth
having in mind. Maybe worth mentioning early in a part authoring tutorial. A
part or model file would work just as well if the first line was a type 1 ~ 5.
It's not a really big issue. But it is an issue, on top of others.
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> And I'm honestly not being obtuse here either. I'm ready to change
> my opinion if I understand and agree with what you're saying. I feel I must be
> missing something.
Well, I singled out the header-code not as the problem in itself but as
symptomatic of a shift that's taken place over a period of years. I don't know
how else to say it without sounding petty, and I'm absolutely not singling out
any one person in my criticism.
The Star Trek club demonstrated a farcical obsession with the *process* rather
than with the *purpose.* I admit that I'm not 100% clear what their exact
purpose was (I presume it had something to do with sharing Trek fan-news and the
like), but I'm sure that it wasn't simply to display a letterhead. Yet that's
what occupied the entirety of their quite heated meeting.
The reason I use this as an analogy is because it strikes me as rather similar
to something that LDraw went through not long ago, resulting in a years-long
drought of new part libraries. Whatever the reason, the end result was that
eager users had no access to new parts for a *very* extended period; the purpose
was bogged down by the process.
It didn't help that the only glimmers of life throughout this long delay were
occasional posts about the LSC and who was getting voted into what position.
Again, this isn't to diminish the work of these contributors; it's a comment on
where the priority seemed to be during this time. And when that time passed, I
found my interest in the "official" product all but quenched.
Additionally, the inclusion of official entries straight from LEGO has
compromised the organic, fan-based purity of LDraw. Why would anyone bother
spending weeks authoring a new Bionicle element when the good people @ LEGO can
crank one out on demand from their existing files?
Here IMO is the crux of Tore's question from his OP:
> Where have LDrawers moved? Away from LCad I'm afraid?
I've attempted to give a partial answer to this, based on my own personal
experience and discussions with other people who've formerly been much more
involved in the sharing of MOCs via LDraw, if not in the actual process of part
authoring.
I accept that you don't see my reasons as significant or central, and you're
welcome to reach different conclusions, of course. I can only tell you what I
know.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
***snip***
I'd like to mention at this point that Tore Eriksson is personally responsible
for my first forays into apocryphal parts-authoring. I found his small handful
of Tyco-based half-height elements, and I thought "I can do that." I knew
nothing of the code, but I started by tweaking the placement of the stud.dat
primitives in a 2x4 half-height brick, and that was that.
After those humble beginnings, I was hooked. So you can blame Tore for the 1200
or so non-canonical parts that have followed.
Thanks, Tore!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > Like many of us, you've been here forever. So perhaps you don't realize
> > that it's currently impossible for new folks to sign up here and get access
> > to the quick n easy reply method that the old timers enjoy. That, more than
> > anything else, is why this place currently a ghost town.
> >
> > Have fun, and if you forget your lugnet password, don't ever get a new
> > computer...
> >
> > Don
>
> I must admit that I hadn't realised it was so hard to post now. That, IMO, means
> we need somewhere new to discuss LDraw. If new people can't easily post in
> discussions then we are killing fresh discussion and that is a very bad move.
Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix
them.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix
> them.
Holy moley! Do you still exist?!?
|
|
| |
Tore Eriksson wrote:
>
> What I believe is the biggest issue is nobody's fault: All the easy,
> "basic" parts are already made, and the new parts LEGO makes are very
> hard to LDraw.
I think you are completely right here! I have done some starts in part
authoring, but given up on 'the real thing' as there are no easy parts left
to do. Of course this makes it much harder for a budding part author.
The quality which is required is also a hurdle - who really cares aboth the
thickness of an invisible inner wall? Who really cares if two surfaces
overlap a bit, if it *looks* OK?
In my BlockCAD program I go the other way - only the outside of my parts
matter, I try to simplify them as much as possible, to make it easier/faster
for my program to draw them. This way my users can actually work with models
contaning tens of thousands of parts (and the models created are still
compatible to LDRAW, if needed).
--
Anders Isaksson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> > > I agree here partially. I too think that some bits here are bit too formal...
> > > but I tend to think that !HISTORY lines are pretty much useful to keep track on
> > > what's happened and when.. but something that I can't possibly understand is
> > > that if a part author completely remakes a part and gets it to the tracker, the
> > > rewrite must be a !HISTORY line and the author cannot get the Author line!
> > > Really de-motivating...
> >
> > Is it really...???
> I more meant that it de-motivates me from remaking parts if I don't get the
> proper credit for them! I'm a human being - I want credit for what I do. But
> maybe "de-motivating" is the bad word for it. Maybe "annoying" is better there.
>
> But I just can't see the point in it. If you make a part from scratch - be that
> a new one or something that has been on the parts tracker before - it hasn't had
> former history. So why can't the history then be wiped out? Even more, we
> already wipe the history when remaking Non-CA parts.
For the Non-CA parts it should be clear that for legal reasons there has to be
another author mentioned. That's why it is handled there in this way.
For normal parts it is much more difficult.
From what point on it is made from the scratch? - Only the author knows.-
Please imagine that a part where you have spend hours on and you are proud to be
mentioned at the author (because it has been really difficult to make) is
overwritten with the content of a file from another author and you are no more
mentioned! That I feel would be annoying or better "de-motivation" as you will
never know how long will your name be mentioned.
cu
mikeheide
> > Anyway, the average LDraw user will never see the Author line or the History ones!
> >
> > I definitely don't subscribe to the all legalese line we see today (in LDraw or
> > in real life!).
> Ditto. I hate legal stuff. The world would be a better place without it.
>
> > To me, it's just something that must be done. Fortunately there
> > are tools to manage this (Datheader). So it is and remains a hobby (and an
> > addictive one!)
> Indeed. But the problem for me is that most parts I have around are either
> Bionicle parts which are difficult to author or generic Technic parts that have
> already been modeled. So the hobby is challenging for me.
> >
> > Philo
>
> -Santeri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix
> > them.
>
> Holy moley! Do you still exist?!?
Rumors of my disassembly have been greatly exaggerated.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and
> I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's
> L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do
> that's Lego CAD-related (apocryphal or otherwise) starts in LEdit.
>
> Anyone who knows me knows that my particular brand-loyalty makes me a bit of an
> outsider in this community, and that's fair. However, speaking as an outsider,
> I can say that one thing that has really soured me on LDraw in recent years is
> the seemingly obsessive lawyer-ization of it, to the point that it's become less
> of an exercise in Lego design and more a monument to hyper-legalism and
> over-compartmentalized classification.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful input. I might be one of the causes of the
bureaucracy you are referring to (in follow on posts). When I started to write
LDraw tools back in late 1999, I turned to lugnet's LDraw forum to ask for
guidance. I wanted to extend LDraw to support the markup concepts that we know
today as LPub and LSynth.
When I asked for recommendations on how to extend it, the only answer I got
was "Just make sure it doesn't break LEdit" from Steve Bliss. While succinct
and sufficient, it was lacking in any sort of guidance. I deduced that my
extensions should be in the form of meta commands. As I got more connected with
the community, I lobbied for some form of standards committee. My goal was not
to make there be lots more rules (I'm not a huge fan of lots of rules), but to
provide a good place to ask such questions. I think we're better off with the
LSC, even though this makes us a more formal group.
I also assisted in the formulation of the LDraw Steering Committee.
I can see how these formalizations can be a turn off for a grass roots effort
like LDraw, but I guess I see them as a sign of success of James' work. Maybe
if James were still around we would not have needed these things. I don't know,
maybe we didn't need them at all.
I do think that before LDD, LDraw was the only choice, so we did get more
newbies to LDraw. The LDraw tools are still superior to LDD in many ways. I
guess I don't know if I see that we have less people using LDraw than we have in
the past, but I may be wrong.
In the past decade, I think we've made significant progress on the "back end
tools" such as the fantastically realistic renderings made with POV-Ray, the
fast renderers such as LDGLite and LDView, upon which we have LPub to make
building instructions.
I know you're not into MLCad, and it is indeed so 1990's. I wish the front
end tools (model entry) were more modern, and some recent developments might be
heading in the right direction (Bricksmith, SR 3D Builder). Like you, I use the
tools I already know, so I've not tried them. I'd like an entry tool like LDD
(which I've hardly used).
I think that LDraw is no longer in its infancy, and maybe that is what you
miss.
I feel that LDraw is still vibrant and growing. In many ways, we're well
ahead of the tools LEGO uses internally, or at least that was true two years ago
when I gave a presentation on LPub at Brickworld.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > Like many of us, you've been here forever. So perhaps you don't realize
> > > that it's currently impossible for new folks to sign up here and get access
> > > to the quick n easy reply method that the old timers enjoy. That, more than
> > > anything else, is why this place currently a ghost town.
I must admit that I didn't know that it isn't possible to get a membership on
Lugnet anymore. That's not good.
> > > Have fun, and if you forget your lugnet password, don't ever get a new
> > > computer...
Luckily I keep plenty of backups - also of mission-critical cookies.
> Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix
> them.
Yes. What will it take to allow people to get membership-like accounts on
Lugnet again?
Plenty of us are decent programmers and/or system administrators. It can't be an
impossible task.
Play well,
Jacob
--
http:/billeder.sparre-andersen.dk/dagens/2010-03-18
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and
> > I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's
> > L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do
> > that's Lego CAD-related (apocryphal or otherwise) starts in LEdit.
>
> I know you're not into MLCad, and it is indeed so 1990's. I wish the front
> end tools (model entry) were more modern, and some recent developments might be
> heading in the right direction (Bricksmith, SR 3D Builder). Like you, I use the
> tools I already know, so I've not tried them. I'd like an entry tool like LDD
> (which I've hardly used).
There is also LeoCAD, which has some great features MLCad doesn't have. It
sufferes from not being able to use the official parts library (directly), but
it's database is regularly updated.
And as a bonus it's available for Linux too. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried
to build it for Mac, give Bricksmith a little friendly competition ;)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> Here's the last version I gave:
> http://www.pobursky.com/common/files/LDraw_Intro_2009.odp (19.3MB)
>
> It's been a year since I gave it so it may be outdated.
>
> -Orion
Thank you Orion. I've finally found the presentation I made some time ago and if
you're interested you can download it here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QKOSECDN
It's in Spanish, but that should not be a problem. Any
suggestions/additions/improvements are welcome.
Jetro
|
|
| |
Kevin L. Clague wrote:
>
> I'd like an entry tool like LDD (which I've hardly used).
Actually, there has been an 'entry tool' around since 1998 - BlockCAD
(www.blockcad.net). While it's using part definitions of its own, and has a
lot of limitations (studs up only, fixed rotation of parts, no Technic) you
can
save models in the LDRAW format. BC has also had the availability of
one-click-rendering in POVRay almost since its beginning.
Thanks to its ease of use (parts snap on to each other), BC have been, and
is still, used in schools (and pre-schools) all around the world, as a first
introduction to CAD, for 3D visualization, maths, plain entertainment and so
on.
The natural step after BC is MLCad - you can open all your old BC models and
continnue in the more advanced tools.
--
Anders Isaksson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
--snip--
> I accept that you don't see my reasons as significant or central, and you're
> welcome to reach different conclusions, of course. I can only tell you what I
> know.
I think I see a bit better what you were getting at (and what Tore is getting at
too which is the same issue I think). I kind of do agree with you both that
making new parts is too hard due in part to an overzealous set of requirements.
It's almost as though part authors are expected to match the famous 1 in a 1000
tolerance if genuine LEGO parts. The header is just a symptom of it.
I've actually argued quietly in the past that the requirements are too high. I
believe that so long as a part looks right in its visible surfaces and uses the
important primitives that affect rendering (for studs and curves etc.) and has
its centre in the right place it should be good for release. I feel that the
library _has_ gone beyond that 'sweet spot' and into the realm of overaccuracy.
Ultimately I'd love to see parts put into too categories: good for release
(where the orientation and origin is locked) and locked in perfect (where the
part should never be touched again). That way the parts updates could happen
more frequently while the part design perfectionism in the library could
continue without affecting the end users.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > --snip--
> >
> > > Like many of us, you've been here forever. So perhaps you don't realize
> > > that it's currently impossible for new folks to sign up here and get access
> > > to the quick n easy reply method that the old timers enjoy. That, more than
> > > anything else, is why this place currently a ghost town.
> > >
> > > Have fun, and if you forget your lugnet password, don't ever get a new
> > > computer...
> > >
> > > Don
> >
> > I must admit that I hadn't realised it was so hard to post now. That, IMO, means
> > we need somewhere new to discuss LDraw. If new people can't easily post in
> > discussions then we are killing fresh discussion and that is a very bad move.
>
> Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix
> them.
Welcome back. My issue with that is that it's out of the hands of LDraw. It's
hard to expect the people responsible for LUGNET to make big changes when it's
pretty much just one small section that is active.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> There is also LeoCAD, which has some great features MLCad doesn't have. It
> sufferes from not being able to use the official parts library (directly), but
> it's database is regularly updated.
>
> And as a bonus it's available for Linux too. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried
> to build it for Mac, give Bricksmith a little friendly competition ;)
LeoCAD directly imports LDRAW parts. There's no need to wait for an update of
its database. It is as simple as downloading from the parts tracker, and then
importing into LeoCAD itself.
Some folks don't like to manage parts at that level, but it's quite doable.
-- joshuaD
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Ross Crawford wrote:
> >
> > There is also LeoCAD, which has some great features MLCad doesn't have. It
> > sufferes from not being able to use the official parts library (directly), but
> > it's database is regularly updated.
> >
> > And as a bonus it's available for Linux too. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried
> > to build it for Mac, give Bricksmith a little friendly competition ;)
>
> LeoCAD directly imports LDRAW parts. There's no need to wait for an update of
> its database. It is as simple as downloading from the parts tracker, and then
> importing into LeoCAD itself.
Yes that is correct, but importing the files is not using them directly, as most
other LDraw programs do. And for folks that have multiple parts folders, that
can make a big difference.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> Welcome back. My issue with that is that it's out of the hands of LDraw. It's
> hard to expect the people responsible for LUGNET to make big changes when it's
> pretty much just one small section that is active.
Nod. But if the people responsible for LUGNET don't want it to gradually fade
away and become even less relevant, changes are needed. Without them, other
sections won't return either.
I note that there's a facebook discussion group started on this topic.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> > LeoCAD directly imports LDRAW parts. There's no need to wait for an update of
> > its database. It is as simple as downloading from the parts tracker, and then
> > importing into LeoCAD itself.
In lugnet.cad, Ross Crawford wrote:
> Yes that is correct, but importing the files is not using them directly, as most
> other LDraw programs do. And for folks that have multiple parts folders, that
> can make a big difference.
I wanted to make sure people weren't turned away from LeoCAD because they might
think they'd be dependent on third parties to provide a parts library, that's
just not true, so people SHOULD check it out. It's certainly my LCAD tool of
choice (Philo's too, and he's arguably our most prolific parts author at this
point).
This brings up another point that hasn't entirely been part of the discussion:
the concept of self-helped individuals versus end users. A lot of people early
on (by necessity) were quite willing to climb the mountain to get LDRAW set up.
They don't mind a little tinkering and manual labor to get things into place,
and to tweak and tinker along the way to keep things updated.
The project has since moved into a new phase where there are plenty of end users
of the products. They don't like or want (and shouldn't need) to worry about
the nuts and bolts, they just want to use cool software.
When you get to that point, you "lock in" a certain set of requirements, and
those requirements dictate rigor and attention, in order to provide consistency
and clarity.
Long gone are the days that an author can "play" with a part, changing the
origin or default posing on a whim. There are a host of issues that go along
with that. So a lot of the growth of "committees" and voting and the cost of
entry are due to those factors as well. The library has a host of annoying
errors (such as pairs of parts that have the wrong part numbers, but have to
stay that way for backward compatibility) that are really locked in, because of
that issue. In a way, the project is a bit of a victim of its own success.
It's because of all those issues that part authors and reviewers are much more
careful to "get it right" the first time, so we don't get stuck with designs or
situations that are lacking.
The whole "rewrite every header by hand" job that Chris had to do certainly
didn't help the situation, of course. It really HAD to happen, though.
-- joshuaD
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> This brings up another point that hasn't entirely been part of the discussion:
> the concept of self-helped individuals versus end users. A lot of people early
> on (by necessity) were quite willing to climb the mountain to get LDRAW set up.
> They don't mind a little tinkering and manual labor to get things into place,
> and to tweak and tinker along the way to keep things updated.
>
> The project has since moved into a new phase where there are plenty of end users
> of the products. They don't like or want (and shouldn't need) to worry about
> the nuts and bolts, they just want to use cool software.
>
> When you get to that point, you "lock in" a certain set of requirements, and
> those requirements dictate rigor and attention, in order to provide consistency
> and clarity.
>
> Long gone are the days that an author can "play" with a part, changing the
> origin or default posing on a whim. There are a host of issues that go along
> with that. So a lot of the growth of "committees" and voting and the cost of
> entry are due to those factors as well. The library has a host of annoying
> errors (such as pairs of parts that have the wrong part numbers, but have to
> stay that way for backward compatibility) that are really locked in, because of
> that issue. In a way, the project is a bit of a victim of its own success.
>
> It's because of all those issues that part authors and reviewers are much more
> careful to "get it right" the first time, so we don't get stuck with designs or
> situations that are lacking.
>
> The whole "rewrite every header by hand" job that Chris had to do certainly
> didn't help the situation, of course. It really HAD to happen, though.
>
> -- joshuaD
That's a really good explanation of why the 'rules and regulations' have grown
alongside the part library and software.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> The library has a host of annoying
> errors (such as pairs of parts that have the wrong part numbers, but have to
> stay that way for backward compatibility) that are really locked in, because of
> that issue. In a way, the project is a bit of a victim of its own success.
How widespread a problem is that, though? I know that some parts do indeed have
two numbers, but this would seem a glitch that should have been resolved eight
or more years ago, no? I mean, when you can turn a brick over and say "Yep,
it's a 3001," I don't see how it can continue to be an issue.
Granted, the embossed number may not always be clear, and for all I know LEGO
may change the numbers from time to time (or not--I have no idea). But even so
this would seem like a minor annoyance rather than an issue to dictate policy.
For that matter, why is backwards-compatibility such a big deal? In this thread
it's been stated that LEdit doesn't support LDConfig colors, so why should a
"wrong" part number be maintained, rather than replacing it with a simple
~~MOVED TO statement or deleting it from the library altogether?
Dave!
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
>
> > The library has a host of annoying
> > errors (such as pairs of parts that have the wrong part numbers, but have to
> > stay that way for backward compatibility) that are really locked in, because of
> > that issue. In a way, the project is a bit of a victim of its own success.
First, let me make it clear that I am not a supporter of this policy (the fact
that I have to write "policy" makes me feel a tad ill, to be honest). I was
reporting, not defending.
You quoted the most relevant portion of what I wrote. "The project is [...] a
victim of its own success." If we could start NOW with a new official release,
I'd be much happier, personally.
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> How widespread a problem is that, though? I know that some parts do indeed have
> two numbers, but this would seem a glitch that should have been resolved eight
> or more years ago, no? I mean, when you can turn a brick over and say "Yep,
> it's a 3001," I don't see how it can continue to be an issue.
>
> Granted, the embossed number may not always be clear, and for all I know LEGO
> may change the numbers from time to time (or not--I have no idea). But even so
> this would seem like a minor annoyance rather than an issue to dictate policy.
I think the example I have in mind is a little bit different from what you're
talking about.
Start here:
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2790
then go here:
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2791
The first I linked? That's LEGO Design 2791. The second? LEGO design 2790.
2792 is correct: http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2792
I'm PRETTY sure this is an issue that dates back to James' time. I won't go
into specifics, but obviously the right numbers were provided, but they were
miscommunicated somewhere along the way, and the first two had their numbers
reversed. [to be honest, James was pretty willing to guess at certain logical
numberings, and many turned out to be "off" in retrospect. Still, we all did
the best we could with the information at hand...]
> For that matter, why is backwards-compatibility such a big deal? In this thread
> it's been stated that LEdit doesn't support LDConfig colors, so why should a
> "wrong" part number be maintained, rather than replacing it with a simple
> ~~MOVED TO statement or deleting it from the library altogether?
By the time I spotted it and reported it (last year or so? Maybe 2 years
back?), there were LOTS and LOTS of people who had used these parts. So they
were now "locked" in to LDRAW with those numbers.
As a fix, we now have shortcuts 2790a and 2791a, which have the right numbering,
and are ~moved to files that (literally) cross reference the originals.
Not the way I would have run it personally, but then I wouldn't have a very good
answer for the (rather sprawling) user-base who would now be pretty unhappy
about their now "broken" files (I'm speaking generally, not necessarily about
these two parts specifically -- see my postscript below).
-- joshuaD
P.S. These two parts (not available from TLG for years now) are admittedly not
at the nexus of the LEGO parts database; they were simply the first concrete
example of this that jumped to mind; though I did just catch a day ago two
TECHNIC panels that had been reverse-numbered on the parts tracker. Thanks to
the policy, these were caught before release; despite having several "yes" votes
because they are otherwise stellar parts. It was chance, though, I just happened
to need images for those parts at this particular spot in time. :-/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote a big lengthy post.
Maybe we could have a chat channel for LDraw? I myself would suggest of creating
an IRC channel for users to sit, ask help for and just chat in. As LDraw itself
is free software (even though MLCad is not), I feel it's worth the shot to ask
freenode (http://freenode.net/) if they could let us have a channel and believe
that they probably comply. They're such a big network dedicated for open source
software anyway. :)
What you think..?
-Santeri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> Err, how am I supposed to remember which "dozens of threads" I visited
> yesterday? Most "forum" software seems pretty aggressive about not showing
> visited/unvisited links.
The ones I typically visit (ClassicSpace.com, CrownVic.net, and etc.) all
visually show threads with new responses in another color. Some even show you
how many new replies there have been since I last visited. It's easy to see
what to click on. Of course, you have to be logged in for the forum to do this
for you. Otherwise, you're just another "guest" so it won't know what you've
read in the past.
> I don't spend a lot of time in forums, but the only useful one I've found is at
> forum.nasaspaceflight.com -- it has an "unread topics" page, so it really is
> easy to find active discussions which have messages I haven't seen.
True, I like that forum too and only read it when I'm logged in to the site. I
can't log in here because I never got a membership. There were so many
complaints about how hard it was to get one, I never bothered.
> > There are pros and cons to each approach, but the linear layout dominates
> > today's web pages.
>
> Good thing LUGNET message pages have those "linear" links at the bottom of each
> page, so readers can see threads the way they want. Now, if only there were
> sticky settings, so members can set their view permanently.
Another feature which would require you to be logged in. Lots of more modern
forums have settings you can use to customize how you view their site.
Jeff (hitting Preview, then Post, then waiting for the email...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote a big lengthy post.
Yes, didn't I? Almost twice as long as your post... ;)
> Maybe we could have a chat channel for LDraw? I myself would suggest of creating
> an IRC channel for users to sit, ask help for and just chat in. As LDraw itself
> is free software (even though MLCad is not), I feel it's worth the shot to ask
> freenode (http://freenode.net/) if they could let us have a channel and believe
> that they probably comply. They're such a big network dedicated for open source
> software anyway. :)
>
> What you think..?
>
> -Santeri
Isn't MLCad freeware? I didn't know that. But then again, I'm not an MLCad user.
I don't know about a dedicated LDraw chat. Would it really be populated? There's
nothing that stops us from creating an LDraw chat room in, say BrickLink. No
need for asking permission or setting up anything. And many of us already has a
BrickLink account, I guess. But I don't think it will be popular either.
Oh, IRC... it was ages since I used it. Didn't even know it still existed in any
form. Is it "in" again?
/Tore
|
|
| |
On 2010-03-22, Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@mbox325.swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> Oh, IRC... it was ages since I used it. Didn't even know it still existed in any
> form. Is it "in" again?
It still exists, believe it or not (being actively using it "ever since").
But... my perception is that it's mostly the "same old" users keeping it
alive, and a few occasional new ones dropping in. There are 72708 currently
active clients on IRCNet, hard for me to say on a world-basis whether it's
a lot or little for being just one of the networks.
Cheers,
Matija
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Matija Puzar wrote:
> On 2010-03-22, Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@mbox325.swipnet.se> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, IRC... it was ages since I used it. Didn't even know it still existed in any
> > form. Is it "in" again?
>
> It still exists, believe it or not (being actively using it "ever since").
> But... my perception is that it's mostly the "same old" users keeping it
> alive, and a few occasional new ones dropping in. There are 72708 currently
> active clients on IRCNet, hard for me to say on a world-basis whether it's
> a lot or little for being just one of the networks.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Matija
As a data point, IRC is used extensively for helping out with WikiMedia
Foundation related stuff. A fair bit of the traffic in some IRC channels is bot
traffic (some bots posting changes, other bots examining the changes and
reverting vandalism, and the like) but some are extensively used by humans.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote a big lengthy post.
>
> Yes, didn't I? Almost twice as long as your post... ;)
>
> > Maybe we could have a chat channel for LDraw? I myself would suggest of creating
> > an IRC channel for users to sit, ask help for and just chat in. As LDraw itself
> > is free software (even though MLCad is not), I feel it's worth the shot to ask
> > freenode (http://freenode.net/) if they could let us have a channel and believe
> > that they probably comply. They're such a big network dedicated for open source
> > software anyway. :)
> >
> > What you think..?
> >
> > -Santeri
>
> Isn't MLCad freeware? I didn't know that. But then again, I'm not an MLCad user.
Well yes, but it's not open source nor "free software" in the GNU sense.
> I don't know about a dedicated LDraw chat. Would it really be populated? There's
> nothing that stops us from creating an LDraw chat room in, say BrickLink. No
> need for asking permission or setting up anything. And many of us already has a
> BrickLink account, I guess. But I don't think it will be popular either.
>
> Oh, IRC... it was ages since I used it. Didn't even know it still existed in any
> form. Is it "in" again?
I don't know has it ever died but I myself have seen newbies come and go on
#kvirc on freenode. It is around, that's for sure.
>
> /Tore
I checked the freenode policies - the network is "created to serve groups which
exist outside of IRC. It's designed to encourage community members to improve
their skills in the areas of cooperative effort, interpersonal communication and
project coordination, and to create a real-time bridge to the outside world for
our target communities." - http://freenode.net/policy.shtml
And freenode is a large network - currently there is ~55,000 users connected.
Maybe it could help us get some global attention too? ;)
-Santeri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> And freenode is a large network - currently there is ~55,000 users connected.
> Maybe it could help us get some global attention too? ;)
>
> -Santeri
Well, at least I'm not against giving it a try.
/Tore
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > And, worst of all, aren't there any new people joining?
>
> As fas as I understand young people, it might have something to do with a high
> proportion of text matched with a low proportion of visuals. It seems that new
> generations prefer it to be very much the other way round. I've looked at some
> sites aimed at young adulds, and for me these were rather difficult to navigate
> through. This was due to an almost complete lack of navigation related text,
> that otherwise might have helped me along. The navigation on such sites is more
> like a Iphone or a E-magazine, you have to click on a pictogram or other image,
> and behind that the item one looks for, is hidden somehow. My biggest problem
> with that was, that I often failed to recognise the relation between the image
> and the bit of navigation it was supposted to label. For instance, a trendy
> picture of the building that hosted a venue represented the link where you had
> to register/sign up for the venue.
Yes, I agree!
New generations looks at what I call 'vapor-ware'!
The look is the most important think they watch. When I recreate my website,
changing the look but not the contents, I got a 10-20% increased access.
On the other side, the lDraw/MLCad application themselves have a not such
gracefully appearance. The quality of the images displayed were appropriate for
a 10 years old computers. Newbie looks for something more graphically
attractive/easy to use like LDD or SR 3D Builder.
At the first approach new users don't care if a great amount of parts is missed
in LDD. They found the most they need from a free application to play with. Only
after a long time of playing someone (not all) discover the limitations, but
they are already glue with the application.
Advertisement and web do the rest: the users try the following!! Try yourself
and suppose you don't know about MLCad or lDraw software sites:
- Search LEGO PC CAD on the web
- LDD is the first entry (LEGO Logo is comfortable for the user)
- The second or third issue on google search send to THIS forum.
- This forum TALK about LEGO on the PC.
- You need to click on the Link and Resource - lDraw link to go to lDraw pages!
Again text pages!!! No images of MLCad or something VISUAL that let you
understand you are talking about a CAD application!!!!!!! Even if you go to
getting started you get text and text...
- The user backs to google !
- Next useful entry will probably be BLOCK Cad
- The application screen shoot is not bad, but not comparable with LDD. The
application has too many limitation and no technic parts. The user back to
google
- The user will find LEOCad but has the same or more limitation then BLOCKCAD
- The user will find MLCad, but it's not useful without lDraw parts library
installation. The result is that application is too complex to start for
newbie!!
- the user will not search for anything else. It will start using LDD!!
another potential lDraw user is missed...
My application (SR 3D Builder) that is comparable (better) than LDD appears on
pages 5 or 6
IMO lDraw home pages should be more attractive for users. Some images have to
quick show what applications are available for the part library. The part
library itself is not attractive for users.
A rendered model, a screen shot of MLCad and/or SR3D Builder applications in the
main page will change the look and feel of the site.
best regard
Sergio
|
|
| |
> - The user will find LEOCad but has the same or more limitation then BLOCKCAD
Have you ever tried it ???????
Philo
|
|
| |
Sergio wrote:
> - The user will find LEOCad but has the same or more limitation then
> BLOCKCAD
No, this is definitely not true. LeoCAD is AFAIK at least as powerful as
MLCad. BlockCAD is the most limited of the pack, but also the easiest to
use.
When I google for "lego cad" I get:
LDraw
LeoCAD
techbricks' link page containing links to LDraw, MLCad, LeoCAD, BlockCAD and
other things
Image results for lego cad showing BlockCAD and MLCad
BlockCAD
MLCad
Which, to my knowledge, mirrors the creation order of those CAD programs
quite accurately.
And I don't agree that the LDraw page is difficult to navigate, it's only
excruciatingly slow. The first thing I see is a Download link labeled "Get
Started" - how difficult can that be?
The page could be better, with some obvious pictures of LEGO models on the
first page, though.
--
Anders Isaksson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Sergio wrote:
>
> > - The user will find LEOCad but has the same or more limitation then
> > BLOCKCAD
>
> No, this is definitely not true. LeoCAD is AFAIK at least as powerful as
> MLCad. BlockCAD is the most limited of the pack, but also the easiest to
> use.
I had no idea LeoCAD was that feature-rich. Looking closer, I see LeoCAD is
hosted on google code, which implies it's an open source project. But I can't
find any code anywhere... is LeoCAD open-source?
Remi
|
|
| |
>
> There are plenty of people still using LDraw and plenty of newcomers to it.In
> some ways I think it's a victim of its own success. The software is well
> developed and easy to use and the parts library is vast and easy to install. As
> such people don't always need to ask as much about getting stuff to work.
I've been using LDraw for about 8 months now (as a very casual user), and it's
taken quite a while to get into it. I'm mainly using MLCAD to create/edit models
and using POV-Ray to render stuff. Here's my take on it...
I think the key thing is that people need to keep adding new parts to the parts
library. Without the parts you can't create the models..etc..etc
It seems like Lego are churning out new parts everyday, so it's hard to keep up.
Is there a way of working out the number of sets that are dependent on a
particular part? The creation of critical missing parts could then be
prioritised.
From my experience, it seems that most Lego rendering is done using POV-Ray
(there seem to be more tools to support this process). From my experiments, I've
tried to convert models into other 3D formats, but the tools to do this seem to
be quite limited (e.g. 3DWin5 and Ldr2Dat2Dxf). If we could somehow open up the
modelling/rendering process so that's it's easier for users of other 3D tools to
manipulate and render stuff, then I think that would benefit everyone.
(BTW, you can download some Lego models in various 3D formats from my website
http://www.pearse.co.uk/lego)
As a final thought, I think it would be great to create an open source 3D Lego
game as an LDraw community project. Perhaps something like Blenders Game Engine
could be used to do something like this?
For info on the Blender Game Engine see the following link:
http://www.blender.org/education-help/tutorials/game-engine/
Bye for now
Reuben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> > Sergio wrote:
> >
> > > - The user will find LEOCad but has the same or more limitation then
> > > BLOCKCAD
> >
> > No, this is definitely not true. LeoCAD is AFAIK at least as powerful as
> > MLCad. BlockCAD is the most limited of the pack, but also the easiest to
> > use.
>
> I had no idea LeoCAD was that feature-rich. Looking closer, I see LeoCAD is
> hosted on google code, which implies it's an open source project. But I can't
> find any code anywhere... is LeoCAD open-source?
Linked from leocad.org:
http://trac.gerf.org/leocad/wiki/CompilingGuide
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
>
> > Welcome back. My issue with that is that it's out of the hands of LDraw. It's
> > hard to expect the people responsible for LUGNET to make big changes when it's
> > pretty much just one small section that is active.
>
> Nod. But if the people responsible for LUGNET don't want it to gradually fade
> away and become even less relevant, changes are needed. Without them, other
> sections won't return either.
>
> I note that there's a facebook discussion group started on this topic.
Lugnet would need to be simpler... It can't compete with modern social networks
and user friendly picture-hosting websites. Basically, that would imply A LOT
of work while keeping everything free...
|
|
| |
Wow. It's been a while since a thread here broke the 100 dot limit I think...
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> > I guess my biggest & most evil yet realistic question would be: is it worth the
> > effort needed to save LUGNET? I'd be happy to volunteer, but I can't help feel
> > that most of the world has spoken, and moved on...
> >
> >
> > Remi
>
> I am very tempted to change the subject line of this branch of the discussion
> tree into "The future of LUGNET?".
gotta confess to some lurking, here.
i'm a frequent user of ldraw and visitor to lugnet. i'm very interested to see
where this discussion goes and VERY curious to know what sites are taking the
place of lugnet (i 'get' the sites that have all kinds of pics, but where are
people going to discuss things??).
..joseph g
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Joseph Gonzalez wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Remi Gagne wrote:
> > > I guess my biggest & most evil yet realistic question would be: is it worth the
> > > effort needed to save LUGNET? I'd be happy to volunteer, but I can't help feel
> > > that most of the world has spoken, and moved on...
> > >
> > >
> > > Remi
> >
> > I am very tempted to change the subject line of this branch of the discussion
> > tree into "The future of LUGNET?".
>
> gotta confess to some lurking, here.
> i'm a frequent user of ldraw and visitor to lugnet. i'm very interested to see
> where this discussion goes and VERY curious to know what sites are taking the
> place of lugnet (i 'get' the sites that have all kinds of pics, but where are
> people going to discuss things??).
>
> ..joseph g
To my knowledge, this is really the only place to discuss LDraw in a manner
other than 'check out my MOC in LDraw'. All, or nearly all of the developers
(and hopefully future developers) are here. LUGNET also contains the searchable
history of the many discussions.
I already check three or four LEGO-related sites a day. Its getting too
time-consuming to go to every site, just to get a fraction the latest news /
best creations.
I'd certainly like to help make LUGNET more popular and more user-friendly, so
that it will continue to attract new developers. I just don't have the time to
be a web developer as well.
Scott W.
Member LSC
|
|
| |
--snip--
> > gotta confess to some lurking, here.
> > i'm a frequent user of ldraw and visitor to lugnet. i'm very interested to see
> > where this discussion goes and VERY curious to know what sites are taking the
> > place of lugnet (i 'get' the sites that have all kinds of pics, but where are
> > people going to discuss things??).
> >
> > ..joseph g
>
> To my knowledge, this is really the only place to discuss LDraw in a manner
> other than 'check out my MOC in LDraw'. All, or nearly all of the developers
> (and hopefully future developers) are here. LUGNET also contains the searchable
> history of the many discussions.
>
> I already check three or four LEGO-related sites a day. Its getting too
> time-consuming to go to every site, just to get a fraction the latest news /
> best creations.
>
> I'd certainly like to help make LUGNET more popular and more user-friendly, so
> that it will continue to attract new developers. I just don't have the time to
> be a web developer as well.
>
> Scott W.
> Member LSC
The Flickr group gets a bit active when I cross-post discussion threads from
here to it. There are people that don't use LUGNET but do use Flickr that do
like to talk about LDraw. However LUGNET is definitely the central place for it.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Rumors of my disassembly have been greatly exaggerated.
Hello Lary. I still visit http://www.miltontrainworks.com/MTW/products/ and
http://www.bricksmiths.com/guild_members.html from time to time. If you talk
about "gradually fade away"... :-) Though I would still love to get my hands on
a few of your "comming soon" set ideas if it happens to happen someday.
Fortunately, I have two local custom train set suppliers "Blokbricks" and "Brick
Express" filling the niche at the present time.
|
|
|
