| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Let me be the first to say HOLY (expletive deleted for your protection)
The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
Wow.
Adrian
--
www.brickfrenzy.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
links from the main links that began this thread, but did not find anything
along the lines of the above comment. Plus, what can I say, a lot of the
content at those links merely repeats old lugnet content (blech!). Can you
save some of us the trouble of searching for ourselves?
Thanks in advance,
Richard
|
|
| |
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:G54K0r.7vy@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is • truly
> > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
>
> Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
> links from the main links that began this thread, but did not find • anything
> along the lines of the above comment. Plus, what can I say, a lot of the
> content at those links merely repeats old lugnet content (blech!). Can • you
> save some of us the trouble of searching for ourselves?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Richard
It is described on this page: http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
This is pretty amazing IMHO.
Mike - mike_walsh@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
>
> Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
> links from the main links that began this thread, but did not find anything
> along the lines of the above comment. Plus, what can I say, a lot of the
> content at those links merely repeats old lugnet content (blech!). Can you
> save some of us the trouble of searching for ourselves?
I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
This is getting exciting! :)
Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
>
> Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through various
Read down the left side of:
http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
It's just above Eric's arm. :)
Ben Roller
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
> I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> This is getting exciting! :)
>
> Bryan
|
|
| |
Quoting from the article:
"...builders will be able to build any three dimensional creation
using free software to create building instructions for their model -
and then order the appropriate number and type of bricks"
-- Torben Ballegaard Sørensen
I have a question for Mr. Justus,
regarding the above quotation.
This "free software" which is to be used
for building models, will it be compatible
with LDraw/LEdit? That is, will it be able
to read in and interpret the LDraw/LEdit DAT file format?
I sincerely hope this will be the case,
as there are hundreds (if not thousands) of CAD models
already built using the LDraw/LEdit DAT format,
and it would be a sincere loss if these files
were not available for use in this endevour
of yours (and of the Lego Company's).
If this "free software" will not be able
to directly read in files constructed using
the LDraw/LEdit DAT format,
would you consider the creation and release
of a translation/import program, to convert
from LDraw/LEdit DAT format to your program's format?
Thank you.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin W. Cain
"http://fcain.tripod.com/"
"http://fcain.tripod.com/lego/"
"http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/fwcain/"
"http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/fwcain/castle123/" (under construction)
(quoted from previous messages):
>
> > > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color
> > > is truly mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
> >
> > Where precisely did you see this?
>
> Read down the left side of:
> http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
> It's just above Eric's arm. :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
Well, as exciting as this is (and it's a HUGE step in the right direction --
one can see that at last TLC is starting to "get it"), one has to wonder at
the limitations. I presume that the software/sets will be limited by brick
type and color selections. But, we shall see...
If this is the news of all brick types being made available in all colors
and in any quantity that many have been waiting for, it's practically too
good to be true! Consequently, I doubt it.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
What you said, Baby!
I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing the
wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> > Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> > doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> But, we shall see...
> If this is the news of all brick types being made available in all colors
> and in any quantity that many have been waiting for, it's practically too
> good to be true! Consequently, I doubt it.
>
> -- Richard
My sentiments exactly!!
> The possibilities will be endless!
> (Unless quantity, size, color or piece availability restrictions occur.)
Price my also be a factor...
Sincerely,
Richard Noeckel
You can reach me @ SHROUD_OF_KUNG_FU@Hotmail.com
-Lego good, Canada great-®
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
> >
> > I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> > and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> > purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> > and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
> Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> > This is getting exciting! :)
> >
> > Bryan
Alrite!! I can finally 'design' a Metroliner and order all the bricks on-line.
And how about all those classic space sets that are missing from my
collection....
Mark "my bank-account sgonna faint in 2002" de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What you said, Baby!
>
> I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing the
> wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
One hopes for the latter but fears for the former. We have a licensing
problem with the parts library, which we need to address, quickly, IMHO, or
stumbling blocks of our own making could prevent TLC legal from approving
use of the LDraw format. This is being discussed in the CAD groups (work
faltered on a license, it's a hard problem. I'm arguing that the matter all
of a sudden got more urgent)
I am sure that most of us would not like to see a Creator style interface or
Creator format data files... but rather would prefer the 100 flowers of the
many different LDraw compatible programs to continue to bloom rather than
wither on the vine, so that users have a choice of interface styles, etc.
++Lar
|
|
| |
"Franklin W. Cain" <fwcain@yahoo.com> writes:
> This "free software" which is to be used for building models, will it
> be compatible with LDraw/LEdit? That is, will it be able to read in
> and interpret the LDraw/LEdit DAT file format?
I'm guessing that TLC uses the word "free" in the meaning "gratis", not
"free" as in "Free Software Foundation".
I would be very surprised if TLC are going to use the LDraw format. It
has far too many difficult issues for them to use it. If we are lucky,
we can reverse engineer whatever format TLC comes up with to describe
the models to be submitted, and make a converter from LDraw to this
format. But I honestly doubt even that.
Difficult issues with LDraw include:
o Incomplete parts library. Obviously, many of the recent parts (and a
few old ones, too) are missing from the LDraw parts library. It is a
substantial job to fill in these.
o Some of the LDraw parts do not look like the real LEGO counterparts.
For example, the Technic axles are a bit too short, the Technic pins
do not have the "lips" on the ends, the 6558 Technic Axle Joiner has
the old style looks, meaning that the exterior is rotated 45° with
respect the part being used right now. Then there's a lot of details
which are left out on LDraw parts, for example the tubes under the
plates and bricks, ribs on Technic friction pins and much, much more.
o Some parts are difficult to model with LDraw. Take the flexible
element tubes, axles and other elements. These are difficult to model
with LDraw, and hence it is difficult to communicate exactly what
length is required.
o LDraw can be used to compose "impossible" part combinations. A lot of
LDraw parts come as multiple subparts. Some of these subparts reflect
the way the real parts are composed, and some don't. For example, you
can use LDraw to include odd elements in your models like the end part
of a Technic Pneumatic Airtank, a single 2x2/1x4 plate hinge element,
a minifig jack handle without the rest of the jack and so on.
o Parts in non-existing colour combinations. Let me just say chromed
minifigs and yellow rubber tires. I'm sure you can picture the
problems related to this.
I bet TLC prefer to make their own modeling software and parts library
to avoid problems like this.
It may be relevant to note that while LUGNET, Brickshelf, NQC and lots
of other fan created tools have received attention from TLC lately, I
haven't seen much of this for LDraw. LDraw may be something TLC do not
want to support.
The news we have heard lately is really exciting! 2002 is not that far
off. Let's just hope that this service is offered to the whole world
simultaneously, so that us from far away Europe don't have to wait
another year...
Fredrik (still waiting for LEGO Direct to appear i Norway)
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G5561G.6xp@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > What you said, Baby!
> >
> > I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing • the
> > wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
>
> One hopes for the latter but fears for the former. We have a licensing
> problem with the parts library, which we need to address, quickly, IMHO, • or
> stumbling blocks of our own making could prevent TLC legal from approving
> use of the LDraw format. This is being discussed in the CAD groups (work
> faltered on a license, it's a hard problem. I'm arguing that the matter • all
> of a sudden got more urgent)
>
> I am sure that most of us would not like to see a Creator style interface • or
> Creator format data files... but rather would prefer the 100 flowers of • the
> many different LDraw compatible programs to continue to bloom rather than
> wither on the vine, so that users have a choice of interface styles, etc.
>
> ++Lar
It would be great if somehow TLC worked with the LCAD community to develop
this software, and allowed DAT format natively, like the proposed Artemis
project mentions. It would of course need its own more advanced format
because more stuff would be needed, but including DAT would be a _very_ wise
thing to do.
I hope the parts license gets resolved quickly too.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:m3y9xt7q3s.fsf@crossblock.localdomain...
> "Franklin W. Cain" <fwcain@yahoo.com> writes:
> I would be very surprised if TLC are going to use the LDraw format. It
> has far too many difficult issues for them to use it. If we are lucky,
> we can reverse engineer whatever format TLC comes up with to describe
> the models to be submitted, and make a converter from LDraw to this
> format. But I honestly doubt even that.
Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it would be
great if this software could import DAT files and convert them itself to the
new format. This would save a LOT of hassle changing over the community's
standard format if this software is to replace LCAD.
If this replaces LCAD, it better be Windows/Mac/Unix compatible, not too
heavy on the animation, easy to use yet not too sappy GUI, advanced enough
for the most demanding users, etc etc. It should embody all LCAD has become
into something greater and truly better - NOT Creator-esque.
> Difficult issues with LDraw include:
>
> o Incomplete parts library. Obviously, many of the recent parts (and a
> few old ones, too) are missing from the LDraw parts library. It is a
> substantial job to fill in these.
Again, if the TLC software imported DAT, this would not be a problem.
> o Some of the LDraw parts do not look like the real LEGO counterparts.
> For example, the Technic axles are a bit too short, the Technic pins
> do not have the "lips" on the ends, the 6558 Technic Axle Joiner has
> the old style looks, meaning that the exterior is rotated 45° with
> respect the part being used right now. Then there's a lot of details
> which are left out on LDraw parts, for example the tubes under the
> plates and bricks, ribs on Technic friction pins and much, much more.
Take the part number representations and convert over that way. If the
software knows the LDraw library, then conversion should not be a huge
problem. Spacing may become an issue, but if their parts snap to studs, it
can automagically be adjusted.
> o Some parts are difficult to model with LDraw. Take the flexible
> element tubes, axles and other elements. These are difficult to model
> with LDraw, and hence it is difficult to communicate exactly what
> length is required.
DAT import again.
> o LDraw can be used to compose "impossible" part combinations. A lot of
> LDraw parts come as multiple subparts. Some of these subparts reflect
> the way the real parts are composed, and some don't. For example, you
> can use LDraw to include odd elements in your models like the end part
> of a Technic Pneumatic Airtank, a single 2x2/1x4 plate hinge element,
> a minifig jack handle without the rest of the jack and so on.
>
> o Parts in non-existing colour combinations. Let me just say chromed
> minifigs and yellow rubber tires. I'm sure you can picture the
> problems related to this.
If DAT was imported, the software could check for parts not produced in
certain colors, and incomplete/non-available parts.
> I bet TLC prefer to make their own modeling software and parts library
> to avoid problems like this.
No doubt they will make their own library. I hope it doesn't turn out like
Creator, and can be made compatible with a lite viewer and plugged into
LUGNET, DAT support, advanced features, etc etc. Maybe they should develop
two versions, with age reccommendations on them. Perhaps 5-12 and 12+ -
different skill levels, and MLCAD-like features on the latter. What if it
supported LEdit key commands?? That would rock!! :-)
> It may be relevant to note that while LUGNET, Brickshelf, NQC and lots
> of other fan created tools have received attention from TLC lately, I
> haven't seen much of this for LDraw. LDraw may be something TLC do not
> want to support.
I believe its from the legal hoops they will have to jump through to adopt
some sort of compatibility. I hope they go through with it anyways, and
support the importing of DAT in their software. If they don't, a lot of
people here will be forced to redesign their models in their software if
they want to order bricks. They should be able to convert their models over
with a few clicks, save it as the new LEGO format, and go about their merry
ways.
If TLC doesn't support DAT, a lot of people will be frustrated. Though they
may provide a better program, a lot of people will be forced to redo work
they spent hours on. Will that be worth it to take advantage of the new
service, when they've already spent the time designing it in 3D?
What about renderings through programs like POV-Ray. If this new program
had a rendering/scene feature that was easy to use (for dummies like me)
that would be wonderful. Make the program multipurpose...creating digital
instructions, parts lists, scenes, etc - in one file. Keep the idea of the
DAT file and go off of it. Small portable text file which references local
files. One of the things that makes LDraw so great.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> We have a licensing
> problem with the parts library, which we need to address, quickly, IMHO, or
> stumbling blocks of our own making could prevent TLC legal from approving
> use of the LDraw format.
The licensing issue doesn't matter, except for appearances/impressions
(having a 'licensing issue' gives the impression that we might not play well
with LEGO).
LEGO doesn't need the LDraw parts library, they've got their own parts
database. What we want from LEGO is compatibility with the LDraw file
format, so LEGO's software can read our model files. LEGO doesn't need any
special permission to write software that reads LDraw DAT files.
If LEGO were to use an extension of the LDraw format in their software,
that'd be awesome. But they need so much more from their modeling system,
LDraw only scratches the surface.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
> >
> > I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> > and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> > purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> > and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
> Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> > This is getting exciting! :)
> >
> > Bryan
I think that TLC will guard against this by limiting the number of elements
included in the software. For example, if this software includes a database
of say, 1000 parts (a wild guess), our personalized instructions will not be
able to contain other parts than those 1000.
This way, TLC will limit the number of parts it will have to produce for us
and will help keep the cost of the endeavor in check. Unfortunately, it will
mean that we won't be able to order "any part in any color". However, I hope
I am wrong :-) .
Kev Z (Who dreamt of monorails, vehicle doors and round trees last night)
#142
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> This "free software" which is to be used
> for building models, will it be compatible
> with LDraw/LEdit? That is, will it be able
> to read in and interpret the LDraw/LEdit DAT file format?
Wow wow slow down guys. That's just their objective. It will be a difficult
job and they may only have a simple software for kids at the beginning.
Frankly if they just provide a simple interface like BrickBay for each
available part it would be totally wonderful. On top of that they can create a
page to accept order from a standard part inventory list. Generate such a list
from a LDraw DAT file would be a very simple job. All we need to do is pass
the LDraw DAT file through a software to generate this standard inventory list,
add a few extra parts or combine the list with parts from another DAT file to
save on shipping. Then we copy and paste the list into LEGO's ordering page
and off we go!
The page should be smart enough to check the list for part availibility, and
even make smart suggestion like "Sorry we do not have trans-green 2x1 tile. Do
you like trans-leon-green 2x1 tile, solid green 2x1 tile, or cancel the
order?". This way they don't even need to worry about the legal issue of
copyrighted designs as in the Mosaic. All they know is the parts order. It's
no difference than ordering paint and wood.
The only thing missing would be the building instruction, but it should not
matter since you have the DAT file. If it is a gift for a kid you can generate
the print yourself. If the DAT is complicate enough you will need manual
adjustment to the instruction anyway.
However no matter what they will do, a custom design is gona cost more than the
standard set. E.g. ordering all the parts for the Metroliner will cost more
than the original. But you don't have to order the curve tracks if you don't
want them which can reduce the cost substantially.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Zwicker writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Leach writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> >
> > >
> > > I nearly missed it myself! Go back to http://www.lego.com/press/
> > > and scroll down. There should be 3 "blocks" of text, in orange, green, and
> > > purple. Click on the orange block "Online LEGO users design their own sets"
> > > and you'll find the relevant text on that page.
> > Hmmm,hey Tom does this mean we can design and order sets with garage
> > doors?Or sets with dare i say MONORAIL!
> > > This is getting exciting! :)
> > >
> > > Bryan
>
> I think that TLC will guard against this by limiting the number of elements
> included in the software. For example, if this software includes a database
> of say, 1000 parts (a wild guess), our personalized instructions will not be
> able to contain other parts than those 1000.
>
> This way, TLC will limit the number of parts it will have to produce for us
> and will help keep the cost of the endeavor in check. Unfortunately, it will
> mean that we won't be able to order "any part in any color". However, I hope
> I am wrong :-) .
>
> Kev Z (Who dreamt of monorails, vehicle doors and round trees last night)
> #142
I think one limitation will be related to the molds required for piece
production. If the particular mold no longer exists, for example. But I'd bet
that strong demand from consumers (like us) will bring out some fun pieces.
-Suz (fingers crossed for the garage doors)
|
|
| |
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it
> would be great if this software could import DAT files and convert
> them itself to the new format. This would save a LOT of hassle
> changing over the community's standard format if this software is
> to replace LCAD.
I wonder if I have missed something important. When I read the
information in the press release that people can use a free modeling
program to represent their model and then submit it to buy the parts
needed, I thought this program would be useable only as a tool to
indicate what parts would be needed. Your post appears to indicate
that you think that this software may/will replace LDraw in all kinds
of aspects. Is there any information present in the press release
that indicates that TLC are providing the community with a new, free
LEGO CAD system?
Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
user which can be reverse engineered.
BTW, you consistently post articles with lines wrapped, especially
quoted lines. Do you think you can increase the line length in your
client to avoid this? Or perhaps you can refill the paragraphs before
quoting them to avoid line wrapping? Just a thought.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Zwicker writes:
> I think that TLC will guard against this by limiting the number of elements
> included in the software. For example, if this software includes a database
> of say, 1000 parts (a wild guess), our personalized instructions will not be
> able to contain other parts than those 1000.
>
> This way, TLC will limit the number of parts it will have to produce for us
> and will help keep the cost of the endeavor in check. Unfortunately, it will
> mean that we won't be able to order "any part in any color". However, I hope
> I am wrong :-) .
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that'll be true-- after all, one of the major costs in
manufacturing is the time it takes in changing from one mold to another,
when you could have been pumping out more parts. Also, I seem to recall that
if the color's being changed, they have to run the machine for a minute or
something to remove all of the old color and get the new color flowing.
(Someone once mentioned having a swirl of yellow in a red brick once, which
would seem to support that).
Also, as Suz mentioned, if the molds for a part no longer exist, they can't
very well make the part. So we probably can't go ordering pitchforks, old
style technic connectors (w/ teeth), classic space helmets, etc. (Although I
wish we could!)
At a random guess, I'd say their part selection will change yearly, and
popular parts will remain orderable, with less popular parts being cycled
out, and also corresponding to their use in current sets. So maybe that
means that users of the product will need to change part libraries every
year... or that when you submit your design for ordering, you'll simply get
a list of unavailable parts that you used in your model that won't be
included in your shipment.
DaveE
|
|
| |
"Ben Roller" <broller@mail.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:G54KBx.8K4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Adrian Drake writes:
> > > The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is • truly
> > > mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
> >
> > Where precisely did you see this? I tried to scan around through • various
>
> Read down the left side of:
> http://www.lego.com/press/legocompany.asp
>
> It's just above Eric's arm. :)
I think people may be reading way too much into this. My guess is that
"build any three dimensional creation" is analagous to Mosaic's "turn any
picture into a model." This seems more geared toward Lego sculpting than
to creating absolutely any model with any elements. I just don't see this
at all meaning "any piece in any quantity." But then I could be wrong :)
-John Van
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> user which can be reverse engineered.
There's a strong chance that a mutually beneficial relationship between L-CAD
developers and TLC may emerge. LEGO is keeping a very open mind about new
data formats. My sense is that they not only want to be able to import
LDraw .DAT files someday (either natively or via an external conversion
process) but that they also understand the benefits of open-architecture
file formats. I suspect what they are likely to do with their proprietary
modeling language is similar to what Adobe did with PostScript: publish
detailed syntactical and semantical specifications of the language while
retaining ownership of the language itself. Even though the format is still
proprietary, third-party tools thrive. Open-architecture text-based file
formats are beautiful flowers. Closed-architecture binary file formats are
poisonous weeds. I'm pretty sure LEGO understands this and won't risk a
mis-step.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> What you said, Baby!
>
> I wondered upon these issues almost immediately. Are they reinventing the
> wheel, or reusing the wheel that has already been made?
LEGO has their own software for drawing sets.
You can see the most recent use of it in the LEGO sculpture
"present/ornament" they're selling/building at LEGOLAND this Christmas.
I would suspect (but don't know) that if anyone wants compatability for
LDRAW, they'll have to create it themselves.
-Jon
|
|
| |
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:qrdd7f5cwad.fsf@eos.uio.no...
> "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
>
> > Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it
> > would be great if this software could import DAT files and convert
> > them itself to the new format. This would save a LOT of hassle
> > changing over the community's standard format if this software is
> > to replace LCAD.
>
> I wonder if I have missed something important. When I read the
> information in the press release that people can use a free modeling
> program to represent their model and then submit it to buy the parts
> needed, I thought this program would be useable only as a tool to
> indicate what parts would be needed. Your post appears to indicate
> that you think that this software may/will replace LDraw in all kinds
> of aspects. Is there any information present in the press release
> that indicates that TLC are providing the community with a new, free
> LEGO CAD system?
I don't believe you missed anything. That was an assumption on my part of how
much potential I believe this system to have. If indeed TLC comes out with a
better, more useful system than LCAD, people will switch to it, and gradually
LDraw, etc. will die out.
I don't know anything about their intentions with this software.
Perhaps you are right...this tool may be only useful for the feature of ordering
bricks and producing your 'set.'
It would be great if TLC, with their budget, were able to develop a full
replacement to the LCAD system - BECAUSE they have the potential to do it much
better than we do in our spare time, and have such allies as Autodesk, etc. I
hope that they don't design just a kiddie version, but one that's in-depth
enough for the most advanced LCAD user out here. Will it be worth it to them?
That's up to us to convince them of and for them to decide.
> Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> user which can be reverse engineered.
We all have reason to be pessimistic, but recently I think we have more reason
to be optimistic :-) I want to see a top-notch CAD system for the AFOLs no
matter who makes it (well not Megabloks) - TLC or us.
> BTW, you consistently post articles with lines wrapped, especially
> quoted lines. Do you think you can increase the line length in your
> client to avoid this? Or perhaps you can refill the paragraphs before
> quoting them to avoid line wrapping? Just a thought.
I hope this fixed it. I don't know why I didn't take care of that sooner.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
Adrian Drake wrote:
>
> Let me be the first to say HOLY (expletive deleted for your protection)
> The ability to buy any piece in any quantity in perhaps any color is truly
> mindbendingly awesome. 2002 won't get here soon enough.
Wait a minute! Nowhere does the press release state that
you will be able to buy any piece in any quantity.
It states "bricks." I think what they mean by this is the
current bulk brick offerings. Maybe slightly augmented.
Kevin Zwicker suggested maybe 1000 pieces. That even seems
high to me. Maybe if the 1000 number included color variations.
I am long-range optimistic, but I really doubt that you will
be able to recreate a classic set such as the Yellow Castle
or the Galaxy Explorer and have the pieces arrive at your
door by 2002.
/Eric McC/
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:G55r47.8xK@lugnet.com...
> There's a strong chance that a mutually beneficial relationship between L-CAD
> developers and TLC may emerge. LEGO is keeping a very open mind about new
> data formats.
There is an incredible opportunity there, I've had many conversations with
people in the commuinty about what is there. I haven't heard from them about
anything of the sort, but I would love to.
> My sense is that they not only want to be able to import
> LDraw .DAT files someday (either natively or via an external conversion
> process) but that they also understand the benefits of open-architecture
> file formats. I suspect what they are likely to do with their proprietary
> modeling language is similar to what Adobe did with PostScript: publish
> detailed syntactical and semantical specifications of the language while
> retaining ownership of the language itself. Even though the format is still
> proprietary, third-party tools thrive.
Would this mean they keep control of the parts distribution? I think that this
would be an important factor to them on quality control.
> Open-architecture text-based file
> formats are beautiful flowers. Closed-architecture binary file formats are
> poisonous weeds. I'm pretty sure LEGO understands this and won't risk a
> mis-step.
I hope they won't.
I sent an email to Brad today asking about the CAD development and the LDraw DAT
format. I'm awaiting a reply and more news from him and possible connections to
the developers. I would like to get a CAD group together to discuss this with
them and maybe guide/aid in development from a community perspective.
This is all wonderful news! LEGO is going to be a totally different toy come a
few years, when the potential for people to make the creations of their dreams
is within reach. I'm one big :-) on the inside right now. :-)
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
"John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:G55qKL.6ou@lugnet.com...
> I think people may be reading way too much into this. My guess is that
> "build any three dimensional creation" is analagous to Mosaic's "turn any
> picture into a model." This seems more geared toward Lego sculpting than
> to creating absolutely any model with any elements. I just don't see this
> at all meaning "any piece in any quantity." But then I could be wrong :)
It probably won't mean *any* piece, but I can imagine that a good assortment of
the most desired pieces will be made available. It would be silly of them not
to do that, IMO, once they get their fulfillment centers' opersations capable of
doing this.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> Wait a minute! Nowhere does the press release state that
> you will be able to buy any piece in any quantity.
>
> It states "bricks." I think what they mean by this is the
> current bulk brick offerings. Maybe slightly augmented.
> Kevin Zwicker suggested maybe 1000 pieces. That even seems
> high to me. Maybe if the 1000 number included color variations.
I would have to side with Eric on this one.
Although I've been drooling over the possibilities of true bulk ordering, my
suspicion is that the range of elements will be severly limited.
Look for example at http://www.lego.com/press/sculpture.asp which shows
models of the Statue of Liberty and the 20" maxifigure as well as the
statement "Buy any number of bricks you want at LEGO.com". I would suspect
that the initial pool of bulk elements will not differ much from those
offered in these models. In other words: rectangular bricks, plates, and a
small number of specialty elements.
Of course that doesn't preclude us from offering our suggestions...
Dream well,
Andreas Stabno
http://www.megsinet.net/~stabno/SimiLego.htm
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> Open-architecture text-based file formats are beautiful flowers.
> Closed-architecture binary file formats are poisonous weeds. I'm
> pretty sure LEGO understands this and won't risk a mis-step.
I'm not too experienced with LEGO software, but I can't say I've had the
impression that LEGO lives by those rules so far. Ok, so my hands on
experience is limited to the Cybermaster unit, which needs specific
operating system¹ versions to function, and does not produce any
open-architecture text-based file formats.
But I can see that you are more experienced with LEGO software, so there
may be a reason to take a little more optimistic view on this.
Has there been any official acknowledgement of the existence of LDraw
from TLC? Like we have seen for LUGNET, Brickshelf, et al lately?
Fredrik
__
¹) I'm being kind here, calling it an "operating system".
|
|
| |
If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
their business, namely, AFOLs.
Build On!
John Matthews
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:G55toz.HDo@lugnet.com...
> "John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:G55qKL.6ou@lugnet.com...
>
> > I think people may be reading way too much into this. My guess is that
> > "build any three dimensional creation" is analagous to Mosaic's "turn • any
> > picture into a model." This seems more geared toward Lego sculpting • than
> > to creating absolutely any model with any elements. I just don't see • this
> > at all meaning "any piece in any quantity." But then I could be wrong • :)
>
> It probably won't mean *any* piece, but I can imagine that a good • assortment of
> the most desired pieces will be made available. It would be silly of them • not
> to do that, IMO, once they get their fulfillment centers' opersations • capable of
> doing this.
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
>
|
|
| |
John Matthews wrote:
> If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> their business, namely, AFOLs.
You're joking, right?
Garage doors are desirable (highly). If they start selling them Bulk, they're
STILL desirable. To BUILD with.
I don't amass certain parts because they are desirable (that would be silly, as
it would cost me way too much money), I amass them because I want to build with
them.
I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
Just ask others about pitchforks - most people that want them want dozens for
layouts.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Matthews writes:
> If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> their business, namely, AFOLs.
I'm not sure this is completely true, inasmuch as the desirable parts have
intrinsic value (contrast with highly desirable collectible stamps). I for
one will always value train windows at a non zero amount, because I actually
use them in designs.
Further, I don't think TLC is making a great deal off the market in used
pitchforks, for example, so making pitchforks available as an element isn't
going to cost TLC any lost set sales.
There's SOME truth to your assertion, John, I bought 5542s because of
certain parts they have, not because of their value as models qua models.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Matthews writes:
> > If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> > desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> > their business, namely, AFOLs.
>
> I'm not sure this is completely true, inasmuch as the desirable parts have
> intrinsic value (contrast with highly desirable collectible stamps). I for
> one will always value train windows at a non zero amount, because I actually
> use them in designs.
>
> Further, I don't think TLC is making a great deal off the market in used
> pitchforks, for example, so making pitchforks available as an element isn't
> going to cost TLC any lost set sales.
>
> There's SOME truth to your assertion, John, I bought 5542s because of
> certain parts they have, not because of their value as models qua models.
>
> ++Lar
Very true.
How many people would buy a metroliner or a black seas baracuda or any
other so called "rare" set just because its "rare" and/or valuable?
I certainly woudnt.
There are only 2 reasons I buy lego:
Because I like the design of the set and
Because I want 1 or more parts from that set for my own models. (like
the 6018 I just bought...)
The only thing that determins the value of a given set or part is the
rarity.
If lego re-released, say, the USS constellation would people still pay
the high price for it? I think not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Matthews writes:
> If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> their business, namely, AFOLs.
Actually, I think LEGO would benefit greatly (as in, money in their pockets)
if they offered the desireable parts because they are simply desireable!
However, I'd have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's great that
I can get huge amounts of pitchforks (for example), but then the one
pitchfork that I currently own wouldn't be special (to me) anymore.
Taken a step further, sets that are "no longer available" will once again be
available, somehow or another! (My "prized" Black Seas Barracuda wouldn't
be "prized" anymore!)
So secretly, I hope for the middle ground: LEGO should make MOST (but not
all) pieces available for us to access.
Bryan
|
|
| |
Warning, uninformed speculation ahead. That annoys some people (and their
annoyance, in turn, bemuses others).
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> So secretly, I hope for the middle ground: LEGO should make MOST (but not
> all) pieces available for us to access.
I think this is the very MOST that we can hope for and it is in fact a
stretch. Although no one can say for sure, the probability that the molds
for some parts (the conveyor chute part, for example) no longer exist is
very very high. That would make reintroducing them prohibitively expensive
My expectation is that we may get a larger selection of parts in bulk than
we currently have, and in fact I think many of us have posted what we think
good sets of parts are, and some of us have communicated that same
information to TLC using more 1 to 1 channels which we have higher
confidence in the message being received than this channel.
But to expect that every part used in the last five years, even, will be
available in every color used in the last 5 years? That's a bit of a
stretch. Even the most optimistic guesstimates of TLC logistics and delivery
capability make it seem unlikely. If it comes to pass I'll be ordering a
copy of the parts to make my MTW-1001 custom hopper in Maersk light blue.
Wouldn't THAT be a sight to see?
But I don't see it happening.
However, give me the RIGHT 200-300 different parts in 10 colors and I'll
venture that you'll be amazed at the designs that can be produced. The
MTW-3002-bu Doodlebug, for example, uses about 150 different color/part
combinations (~100 different parts, some in more than one color).
Finally, I have to ask, though. Why wish for parts not to be available,
Bryan? I can happily wish for all of them to be available, while
acknowledging that it's not likely and that a prioritization of which ones
we'd like to see is a useful thing to communicate to TLC.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> Taken a step further, sets that are "no longer available" will once again be
> available, somehow or another! (My "prized" Black Seas Barracuda wouldn't
> be "prized" anymore!)
You "prize" the wrong thing, in my view. You prize the collectability of
the thing, or the elitism of owning the thing, and not the thing itself.
That seems pretty whacky to me, considering we are talking about plastic toys!
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
> However, I'd have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it's great that
> I can get huge amounts of pitchforks (for example), but then the one
> pitchfork that I currently own wouldn't be special (to me) anymore.
>
> Taken a step further, sets that are "no longer available" will once again be
> available, somehow or another! (My "prized" Black Seas Barracuda wouldn't
> be "prized" anymore!)
So? If you "prize" these things for the reason I do, that you LOVE them,
how could it be a bad thing to have them become available again?
I value pitchforks pretty darn highly. I love the part and I wish I could
have 10,000 of them. But it would be silly of me to wish that they wouldn't
make them available again.
The only reasons I can imagine someone would want some parts to not be
available ever again is that a) they hope their rare stuff continues to
increase in value because they have hopes of selling it someday (not
necessarily a bad thing, but not worthy of excluding everyone else from
them) or b) they just plain want to have stuff they think is "special" even
if it means denying those things to lots of other people.
I know it probably won't happen, but I say produce ALL the old cool elements
that are no longer available. I'll happily buy my 10,000 pitchforks and
lots of other people can get some for themselves, and the only people who
won't benefit are the ones who won't get to sell them for $2-$10 each anymore.
|
|
| |
I agree with Tom,
I doubt there is anyone with a larger inventory of rare LEGO parts than I have.
Yet I am giddy with anticipation about getting more parts that are considered
rare. Case in point: sloped bricks --- I have 140 regular sloped 2x2 blue outside
corners. These are very hard to come by, and I could probably sell them for a nice
profit. But no, I want more!!!! (I don't just collect, I build.) I would be
happy if everyone got the opportunity to get these pieces as well. I don't much
care if these pieces are rare or not. It may diminish the value of my collection,
but it increases the opportunity for me and others to build collossal structures.
My 2 cents,
Gary Istok
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
> John Matthews wrote:
>
> > If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> > desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> > their business, namely, AFOLs.
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> Garage doors are desirable (highly). If they start selling them Bulk, they're
> STILL desirable. To BUILD with.
>
> I don't amass certain parts because they are desirable (that would be silly, as
> it would cost me way too much money), I amass them because I want to build with
> them.
>
> I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
> the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
> I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
>
> Just ask others about pitchforks - most people that want them want dozens for
> layouts.
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> ***http://www.vfaq.com/
> ***DSM Visual FAQ home
> ***http://ba.dsm.org/
> ***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
Hello LUGNET,
I wanted to let you all know that LEGO Direct is paying attention! There are
a lot of discussions and meetings going on inside TLC right now about the
issues mentioned in this thread. Hopefully we'll be able to post here
sometime soon with some answers and questions of our own -- about file
formats, LEGO parts and many other subjects. There's a lot to talk about and
we plan on staying in touch with AFOLs about these projects.
By the way, I'm Tomas Clark -- I joined LEGO Direct recently as a producer,
and I'm going to be laboring away on some of the things being talked about
here, so I'll definitely be around. It's going to be fun.
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
Welcome Tomas!
Thanks for posting. It is gratifying to hear every once in a while that
someone in LD really is listening in (at least in this group).
-John
Tomas Clark wrote:
> Hello LUGNET,
>
> I wanted to let you all know that LEGO Direct is paying attention! There are
> a lot of discussions and meetings going on inside TLC right now about the
> issues mentioned in this thread. Hopefully we'll be able to post here
> sometime soon with some answers and questions of our own -- about file
> formats, LEGO parts and many other subjects. There's a lot to talk about and
> we plan on staying in touch with AFOLs about these projects.
>
> By the way, I'm Tomas Clark -- I joined LEGO Direct recently as a producer,
> and I'm going to be laboring away on some of the things being talked about
> here, so I'll definitely be around. It's going to be fun.
>
> Tomas Clark
> Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Gary Istok writes:
> I agree with Tom,
>
> I doubt there is anyone with a larger inventory of rare LEGO parts than I
> have. Yet I am giddy with anticipation about getting more parts that are
> considered rare. Case in point: sloped bricks --- I have 140 regular sloped
> 2x2 blue outside corners. These are very hard to come by, and I could
> probably sell them for a nice profit. But no, I want more!!!! (I don't just
> collect, I build.) I would be happy if everyone got the opportunity to get
> these pieces as well. I don't much care if these pieces are rare or not. It
> may diminish the value of my collection, but it increases the opportunity for
> me and others to build collossal structures.
Ah finally a sub thread that makes some sense. Both Tom and Gary speak wise
words. I will agree that as Bulk parts become available I will almost
definitely cut back on the number of sets I buy but I will more then offset
that with my bulk purchases.
I had a relatively long dark age, 13 years, and because of that I missed out on
lots of parts I would love to get but I am not willing to spend what I would
have to on eBay for the parts. Among some of the parts I would like to see
brought back are.
1. Garage Doors
2. 2 wheeled Motor Cycles
3. Ship Hulls
Other parts I would like to be able to order but are hard to get in quantity at
the moment are.
1. 1x4x3 basic windows, shutters, pains.
2. All 45 degree slope varrients in currently rare colors
3. Large plates.
4. Studded Technic Beams (Especially long ones)
5. Flowers (with stems)
Plus a lot more. The ability to get these parts without paying a huge price
tag or getting a set where half the parts are useless to me would if anything
increase the amount I spend on LEGO because I won't be worried about all the
downsides to storing the parts I don't use so much (No I won't give them to
you).
The ability to get the parts you want in the colors you want is a good thing
even if it will no doubt be limited in scope.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Stanley writes:
> So? If you "prize" these things for the reason I do, that you LOVE them,
> how could it be a bad thing to have them become available again?
>
> I value pitchforks pretty darn highly. I love the part and I wish I could
> have 10,000 of them. But it would be silly of me to wish that they wouldn't
> make them available again.
>
> The only reasons I can imagine someone would want some parts to not be
> available ever again is that a) they hope their rare stuff continues to
> increase in value because they have hopes of selling it someday (not
> necessarily a bad thing, but not worthy of excluding everyone else from
> them) or b) they just plain want to have stuff they think is "special" even
> if it means denying those things to lots of other people.
>
> I know it probably won't happen, but I say produce ALL the old cool elements
> that are no longer available.
> I'll happily buy my 10,000 pitchforks and
> lots of other people can get some for themselves, and the only people who
> won't benefit are the ones who won't get to sell them for $2-$10 each anymore.
Well said! With the introduction of the Mickey Mouse sets, some Fabuland
elements which had been near impossible to find much less afford became
both available and affordable. It is a glorious feeling to have some
elements that I thought I would never even see in person much less possess.
sheree
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I think this is the very MOST that we can hope for and it is in fact a
> stretch. Although no one can say for sure, the probability that the molds
> for some parts (the conveyor chute part, for example) no longer exist is
> very very high. That would make reintroducing them prohibitively expensive
Yep, I'm pretty sure most of us would agree that making *all* parts
available would be ridiculously expensive (from TLC's point of view at least).
> My expectation is that we may get a larger selection of parts in bulk than
> we currently have, and in fact I think many of us have posted what we think
> good sets of parts are, and some of us have communicated that same
> information to TLC using more 1 to 1 channels which we have higher
> confidence in the message being received than this channel.
I have a feeling that those people talking with TLC about good parts are
representative of our general wishes (just remember the "theme x is spare
parts for theme y" equation).
> Finally, I have to ask, though. Why wish for parts not to be available,
> Bryan? I can happily wish for all of them to be available, while
> acknowledging that it's not likely and that a prioritization of which ones
> we'd like to see is a useful thing to communicate to TLC.
Well, some people have gone to great lengths (money, time & effort) in
getting certain parts in large quantities. If all parts were made available
suddenly, then I'd be somewhat bitter...
Hmm, now that I think about my reasoning, I think I've run into a dead end.
I'm sure a lot of you train fans spent a lot on acquiring train
windows/doors (like your stash of 5542s), but you guys were thrilled when
LEGO Direct made them available in bulk quantities.
I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
remain rare!
I dunno: I still have mixed feelings. I have no problems with TLC expanding
their bulk offerings, but I'm uneasy about them opening up their entire
inventory (which probably won't happen anyway).
Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> John Matthews wrote:
>
> > If LEGO offers all the 'desireable' parts, then they no longer are
> > desireable. LEGO would never do this as it would kill off a good deal of
> > their business, namely, AFOLs.
>
> You're joking, right?
>
> Garage doors are desirable (highly). If they start selling them Bulk, they're
> STILL desirable. To BUILD with.
Tom and I often end up bidding on the same lots, he usually wins ;-( deeper
pockets, but the point is that we both want MANY more garage doors, for
building not collecting, hoarding or resaling.
If I had the chance to buy more doors, I'd need more plate, bricks and
slopes to build the models I'm collecting the doors for. Greater access to
"special" parts will cause us to buy more "basic" bricks not less.
.
>
> I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
> the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
> I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
WOW, I knew I had lost quite a few to you, but 150! Share the wealth ;-)
> Just ask others about pitchforks - most people that want them want dozens for
> layouts.
> --
> Tom Stangl
Matthew Greene
|
|
| |
Matthew Greene wrote:
> > I now have about 120-150 complete garage doors (I'd have to inventory to know
> > the exact #, but I have verified 120). If they offered them in Bulk tomorrow,
> > I'd order 50-200 more right away, depending on price and color selections.
>
> WOW, I knew I had lost quite a few to you, but 150! Share the wealth ;-)
Actually, I'll probably Ebay off about 50 or so of them sometime next year - I'm
keeping the colors I DON'T want in order to trade the parts for the colors I DO
want. I need very few clear/blue/transblue/grey slats, need TONS of
white/black/red/yellow slats (also need tons of black/yellow/white slotted 1x2s).
I've had many successful trades with people, part-for-part, to get the parts each of
us want.
Once I have a decent # of complete doors in the colors I want, I'll sell off a bunch
of red frames with clear/transblue slats and blue/grey bottom slats. And all those
nasty transorange slats too.
But if LEGO comes out with the doors before then, it won't bother me a bit, I'll buy
tons more of the colors I want, and keep the "unwanted" ones for special projects
here and there.
Oh, and only 103 of the doors are separate from sets - the rest are in multiple
copies of sets (which is why I don't know the exact #, I have to inventory the # of
each set I have).
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
Bryan Wong wrote:
> Hmm, now that I think about my reasoning, I think I've run into a dead end.
> I'm sure a lot of you train fans spent a lot on acquiring train
> windows/doors (like your stash of 5542s), but you guys were thrilled when
> LEGO Direct made them available in bulk quantities.
Of course interestingly, the colors of doors available have never before
been available, so the value of the existing doors probably has only
dropped a little. Now windows on the other hand, well, grey windows used
to be close to the most rare (or at least most sought after - pink train
windows are the most rare - yes they exist, I have a couple - they came
in some Belville sets). Of course, as soon as I saw the first picture of
the soccer bus, my valuation of train window frames plumeted. Now the
value of clear train glass has plumeted (yup - silly me, have spent up
to $3 per piece of train glass).
> I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> remain rare!
I can understand your position, but I can't respect it. I have a dislike
for companies which make a deliberate attempt to make their product rare
when it is something general purpose. The uniqueness in your models will
be the design (any complex design will not be easily duplicated). I also
don't see something luke LEGO bricks as being something to produce truly
unique works of art. If I want a truly unique piece of art, I'll buy
from an artist who doesn't make duplicates.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
Bryan Wong wrote:
snip a lot of stuff that I wasn't going to comment on
> I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> remain rare!
Weird, I want everyone in the world to copy my trolleys, my caboose, and my
train engines (actually only two, maybe three, of them). I don't think anyone
will but hey why not dream. To be copied...what a compliment.
snip a bit more
Chris
>
> Bryan
--
PGP public key available upon request.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Christopher Masi writes:
> Bryan Wong wrote:
>
>
> snip a lot of stuff that I wasn't going to comment on
>
> > I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> > unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> > castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> > castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> > remain rare!
>
> Weird, I want everyone in the world to copy my trolleys, my caboose, and my
> train engines (actually only two, maybe three, of them). I don't think anyone
> will but hey why not dream. To be copied...what a compliment.
You might be supprised. I was just checking out your trolley yesterday and I
am seriously considering copying it either in total or at least using some of
your ideas. I like it a lot and it may one day show up on a NELUG train
layout.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
Christopher Masi wrote:
> Bryan Wong wrote:
>
>
> snip a lot of stuff that I wasn't going to comment on
>
> > I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> > unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> > castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> > castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> > remain rare!
>
> Weird, I want everyone in the world to copy my trolleys, my caboose, and my
> train engines (actually only two, maybe three, of them). I don't think anyone
> will but hey why not dream. To be copied...what a compliment.
>
> snip a bit more
>
> Chris
>
> >
> > Bryan
>
> --
> PGP public key available upon request.
I agree with Chris, I too want people to copy my work (if they really like it).
I have a lot of rare parts that would certainly drop in value if they were made
available again, but then I could build a building with black or gray 1x2x2
windows or low slope yellow corner bricks. If they produce rare parts again, I
will buy them in bulk. If they don't, then my buildings will remain unique, and
my rare parts will remain rare. I guess it is a win/win situation for me. But I
prefer to give others the opportunity that I had in the 1980's when I had the
rare LEGO parts market all to myself (or so I thought). And I seriously doubt
that TLC will make parts that no longer have a working mold (large spoked wheels,
older classic windows, etc).
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Kingsley writes:
> You might be supprised. I was just checking out your trolley yesterday and I
> am seriously considering copying it either in total or at least using some of
> your ideas. I like it a lot and it may one day show up on a NELUG train
> layout.
Is it... an electric trolley?
We all know how popular those are.
eric
|
|
| |
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:27:26 GMT, "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com>
wrote:
>
> Also, as Suz mentioned, if the molds for a part no longer exist, they can't
> very well make the part. So we probably can't go ordering pitchforks, old
> style technic connectors (w/ teeth), classic space helmets, etc. (Although I
> wish we could!)
> DaveE
Where has it been said that the pitchfork mold is gone? We won't know
until we ask if any certain mold still exist or not. I would think
that the pitchfork mold is more likely than some to be around (I hope
anyways) as they were is less sets than the classic space helmets or
the classic window molds....
What I'd like to see (besides the pitchfork) is the cypress tree
followed by the egg-shaped/6.3 high oval tree. Oh and bulk packs of
chrome helmets.
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle! :^)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> > You might be supprised. I was just checking out your trolley yesterday and I
> > am seriously considering copying it either in total or at least using some of
> > your ideas. I like it a lot and it may one day show up on a NELUG train
> > layout.
>
> Is it... an electric trolley?
>
> We all know how popular those are.
Ooh... An inside joke ;-). Yup it is electric and it needs no "help".
For those wondering here is Chris' trolley. I happen to like it a lot.
http://cmasi.chem.tulane.edu/~lego/trains/trolleys/trolleys.htm
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Eaton writes:
<snip>
> ...So we probably can't go ordering pitchforks, old
> style technic connectors (w/ teeth), classic space helmets, etc.
> (Although I wish we could!)
If you're looking for some, there's still over 100 of them in my
BrickBay store, http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=SRC
and at the cheapest price (of BrickBay) too. :-)
Does this mean I'm going to have to wait a year for my beams?
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
Gary Istok wrote:
> And I seriously doubt
> that TLC will make parts that no longer have a working mold (large spoked wheels,
> older classic windows, etc).
I've seen this argument before, but I want hard data to back it up.
We've all heard the bit about worn molds being cast into new build foundations to
make sure noone can use them - not COMPLETELY true, as Lego displays a few molds here
and there.
The thing people are missing here is, do they scrap UNUSED molds? I doubt it, as
they might decide to use the piece again in the future.
Case in point - garage door slotted bricks. The 1x14s are in a Ninja and Space Port
set, the 1x2s are in some castle sets.
I'm drooling over the thought that they have the slat molds in a vault somewhere,
just needing a reason to crack them out (Bulk Garage Doors! DO IT!).
Who's to say they DON'T have the molds for large spoked wheels in storage, if they
didn't wear out before they stopped production of them for sets?
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Bryan Wong writes:
>
>
> I wish for some parts not to be available so that our collections are
> unique. I prefer seeing your train station with 10 rare pieces, and my
> castle with 10 rare pieces, rather than clones of your station and my
> castle. I want our creations to remain unique! I want rare pieces to
> remain rare!
"Rare" can be somewhat simulated by "expensive". If they produce
the "rarer" parts in smaller quantities, then those parts should
cost more to produce. They should charge a correspondingly higher
price. If they sell a 2x4 brick for 1 cent (whatever) then they
should sell garage doors for $10 each if they cost a lot to produce
in the small quantities. That may discourage people from
trying to corner the market in those parts. They'll be available,
and cheaper than auction droppings, but won't be dirt cheap.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mike Timm writes:
>
> Where has it been said that the pitchfork mold is gone? We won't know
> until we ask if any certain mold still exist or not. I would think
> that the pitchfork mold is more likely than some to be around (I hope
> anyways) as they were is less sets than the classic space helmets or
> the classic window molds....
Even if the molds for some of the parts we want still exist,
they may be useless. LEGO has changed the composition of
its plastics many times over the years (I'm going back to
the 50's here). The newer compounds in use today may be
incompatible with the old molds for a variety of reasons.
Also, the machines that use the molds have also changed
dramatically. New molds are probably required anyhow. At
the very least, if old molds exist and can be retrofit
to current technology, they will be exceptionally expensive
to operate.
The only value that the old molds may hold would be in
the "data". If no drawings are on file for a particular
element, but the old mold exists, then it could be
reverse engineered to recreate the part in CAD (real
engineering CAD, not our LEGO CADs). From there they
could make new tooling (molds).
Either way, we've got to accept that making older parts
may not be as cheap as current ones.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| |
Doesn't Lego already have their own LegoCAD software? I'm not sure what
exactly it comprises or allows you to do, but it is a deritive of AutoCAD
developed by Autodesk. It is available through DACTA and I'm sure is too
expensive for an average user, but since they already have some type of
software developed, it wouldn't be too hard for them to make a smaller
version suitable for constructing models for the Lego Direct use. And if
not another version of the LegoCAD software, they always have Lego Creator,
which if it contained all the necessary pieces would be a great replacement
for LDraw. It can produce step by step instructions although I haven't been
able to take the time to do this in either Lego Creator or LDraw (with
MLCad). I'm sure some of you are a lot more knowledgeable about this than
me, but I would love to see an official product, containing all the pieces
made, available to construct models with. It would be great if it would
allow you to make a completely rendered model at the end of the process. And
of course being able to order your own instructions and completed model from
Lego.. can't wait for that..
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:qrdd7f5cwad.fsf@eos.uio.no...
> > "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> >
> > > Hmm. As I just finished posting, before readin this, :-) ...it
> > > would be great if this software could import DAT files and convert
> > > them itself to the new format. This would save a LOT of hassle
> > > changing over the community's standard format if this software is
> > > to replace LCAD.
> >
> > I wonder if I have missed something important. When I read the
> > information in the press release that people can use a free modeling
> > program to represent their model and then submit it to buy the parts
> > needed, I thought this program would be useable only as a tool to
> > indicate what parts would be needed. Your post appears to indicate
> > that you think that this software may/will replace LDraw in all kinds
> > of aspects. Is there any information present in the press release
> > that indicates that TLC are providing the community with a new, free
> > LEGO CAD system?
>
> I don't believe you missed anything. That was an assumption on my part of how
> much potential I believe this system to have. If indeed TLC comes out with a
> better, more useful system than LCAD, people will switch to it, and gradually
> LDraw, etc. will die out.
>
> I don't know anything about their intentions with this software.
>
> Perhaps you are right...this tool may be only useful for the feature of ordering
> bricks and producing your 'set.'
>
> It would be great if TLC, with their budget, were able to develop a full
> replacement to the LCAD system - BECAUSE they have the potential to do it much
> better than we do in our spare time, and have such allies as Autodesk, etc. I
> hope that they don't design just a kiddie version, but one that's in-depth
> enough for the most advanced LCAD user out here. Will it be worth it to them?
> That's up to us to convince them of and for them to decide.
>
> > Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I would be surprised if the provided
> > software would be useful for much more than composing a model from a
> > selected subset of LEGO parts and the submitting this to buy the parts
> > needed. With some luck there will be a file format visible to the end
> > user which can be reverse engineered.
>
> We all have reason to be pessimistic, but recently I think we have more reason
> to be optimistic :-) I want to see a top-notch CAD system for the AFOLs no
> matter who makes it (well not Megabloks) - TLC or us.
>
> > BTW, you consistently post articles with lines wrapped, especially
> > quoted lines. Do you think you can increase the line length in your
> > client to avoid this? Or perhaps you can refill the paragraphs before
> > quoting them to avoid line wrapping? Just a thought.
>
> I hope this fixed it. I don't know why I didn't take care of that sooner.
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
|
