 | | | | | |
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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--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, 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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, Reuben Pearse wrote:
> 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?
There is no single list, but there are some links here:
http://www.magnusviri.com/lego/downloads/ldraw_repository.html
Also, Eric Albrecht's Technicopedia has Ldraw files for many Technic sets:
http://www.ericalbrecht.com/technic/
Regards
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, 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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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?!?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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, 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.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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, 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, 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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> 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, 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, 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, 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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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, 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, 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, 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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | |
