 | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
following page:
http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
-mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout writes:
> Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> following page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
>
> a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
A BETAMAX format video of the vid clips?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No, probably a Betacam SP format video tape.
That's the most common (analog) professional video
format. It uses Betamax form-factor tapes but the
tape material, speed and format is completely different.
KL
In lugnet.lego.direct, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout writes:
>
> > Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> > following page:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
> >
> > a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
>
> A BETAMAX format video of the vid clips?
>
> eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> No, probably a Betacam SP format video tape.
> That's the most common (analog) professional video
> format. It uses Betamax form-factor tapes but the
> tape material, speed and format is completely different.
Uh. I was mostly joking. I haven't seen a BETAMAX tape since.... well, since
the first place my family used to rent videos from, which was back in... crap.
I dunno. '85? '86?
I figured it was a marketing thing, though, since the main purpose of the site
is "press release", not "make our fans wet themselves".
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In additon to your comments the page syas something about Issue #1. Perhaps
Lego took up the idea a fan- web zine? (after all the non-action when I
tired to get an independent one started :-) !!)
In regard to 3D Moddeler software, Why do we need yet another one?
L-Draw/MLCAD works fine for me.
Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
perhpas a new modeller is needed to ensure that designs aren't ripped or
passed off?
In which case an extension to the L-Draw synatx to allow an Encrytpted
copyright Key to be included within (or with a .DAT ) file might be an
extremly good idea for a V2.XX MLCAD relase. (The intention being to prevent
unfair usage rather than sharing of good ideas :-) )
Comments welcomed.
Alex
Comments?
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
>
>
> Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> following page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
>
> a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
>
> -mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Farlie A wrote:
> Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
> getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
> the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
:)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:4blv2toer0dgb6lov6a4d8c6q8423lrhj3@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Farlie A wrote:
>
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
>
> :)
I'm behind that one too. :-)
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:4blv2toer0dgb6lov6a4d8c6q8423lrhj3@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Farlie A wrote:
>
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
A more serious analysis would conclude that TLC could do something better
themselves, but as of yet we don't know their exact intentions with this
software they are developing for 2002. If TLC intends to make their software
for the sole purpose of being used with their product, then they should somehow
encourage LCAD to grow - it will grow their market, it (hopefully) will be
compatible with their product, and from it more people will become serious FOLs.
If TLC intends to fully replace what we have done so far with LCAD, they should
take into consideration our _every_ wish for a serious LEGO CAD program. It
would be in their best interest to have satisfied customers in all areas - brand
loyalty, fostering community growth, and even potentially their sales.
I feel that either route, TLC will be supporting LCAD in one way or another. I
hope that LCAD does not die out because of TLC's developments, but if they
choose to replace it, I feel strongly that what they design should embody what
we have always wanted in a LEGO CAD program.
Oh, and I _know_ they're listening :-) All we have to do now is wait.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I hope they don't support lcad,
I hope they get rid of all those Lego computer games and concentraty on
making cheaper lego blocks and better models or perhaps they won't be
around next generation.
Koen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> A more serious analysis would conclude that TLC could do something better
> themselves
Actually, that's a debatable conclusion. Not that I want this to go to
.debate.
TLC definitely has the *resources* to put into such a project. So it's not
impossible that they could come up with a better LEGO CAD.
But I'm not sure that it's 'possible', from a practical perspective. There
are some things corporations just aren't capable of, and this may be one of
them. More on this in a minute.
Even if it is *possible*, I'd say it's very, very unlikely. First, we're
still outside of their target market. And outside of their core business.
Also, TLC just turned in record losses. That makes it less likely that
they'll develop our "dream LEGO CAD" software -- unless they perceive a
*very* short, direct path between their action and future profits.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > A more serious analysis would conclude that TLC could do something better
> > themselves
>
> Actually, that's a debatable conclusion. Not that I want this to go to
> .debate.
>
> TLC definitely has the *resources* to put into such a project. So it's not
> impossible that they could come up with a better LEGO CAD.
>
> But I'm not sure that it's 'possible', from a practical perspective. There
> are some things corporations just aren't capable of, and this may be one of
> them. More on this in a minute.
>
> Even if it is *possible*, I'd say it's very, very unlikely. First, we're
> still outside of their target market. And outside of their core business.
> Also, TLC just turned in record losses. That makes it less likely that
> they'll develop our "dream LEGO CAD" software -- unless they perceive a
> *very* short, direct path between their action and future profits.
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you suppose that they are using now to create
their instructions? Do they not have some system in place which they are
already using?
-John
>
>
> Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A313617.3B094C9E@uswest.net...
> Pardon my ignorance, but what do you suppose that they are using now to create
> their instructions? Do they not have some system in place which they are
> already using?
From my understanding, the instruction program is only for the purpose of making
instructions, and all of that is done in Billund. I think that the program is
desgned only for internal use (why would it be for external use anyways?)
I know that TLC uses two different systems for modelling - one for rendering
stuff like LCAD, which is more tedious than LCAD, and one for making
instructions.
Beyond that - I haven't seen anything really detailed on either of them. I've
seen internal rendering printouts and manuals for Autodesk, that's it.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part • authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even • suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
How far we have come along in a year.....
I can remember Michael Lachmann's post (and I'm paraphrasing) where he
wanted to look for a robotics application to program now that MLCad
was stable :-)
Many of us (myself included) encouraged Michael to polish MLCad into
the gem that it is today, and I have to believe that some of that
effort is going to come back to him soon.
I do not know the inner workings of TLG, but I get the following
impressions from reading posts and news releases...
1. TLG is consolidating manufacturing to reduce overhead
2. TLG is getting rid of unpopular lines (ZNAP, some of the software)
I personally like ZNAP...
3. TLG is partnering with established software vendors to release
better software.
4. TLG is tapping the AFOL market to find individuals with a passion
for the brick.
This can only be good for our community. MLCad is a really good bit of
software, and it would only be good business for LEGO to buy the product,
hire Michael and a few other AFOLs, and spin out a great CAD program.
They are just figuring out now that the Web makes it easy to release
software
and that the marketing effort required is MUCH smaller than what it used to
be.
The precedent for this is Palm Computing's purchase of the CodePilot
simulator.
This is a program that takes a binary image from a Palm device and simulates
it
on the PC. It was developed by a hobbyist, became the defacto standard for
development, and then Palm bought it because they could not duplicate
it for anywhere near what they would pay for it.
So, if LEGO is listening, and I _know_ they are, this is the real dawn
of the new millenium! Welcome!
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbForth>
Buy "Extreme Mindstorms: an Advanced Guide to Lego Mindstorms"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893115844/hempeldesigngrou>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > Surely a beter soloution for TLC/TLG is to liase with the part • authours in
> > getting 'offical' parts added to the library qucikly. Maybe even • suppourting
> > the further devlopment of L-Draw/MLCad and related products.
>
> Now *there's* an idea I can get behind, and fully support.
How far we have come along in a year.....
I can remember Michael Lachmann's post (and I'm paraphrasing) where he
wanted to look for a robotics application to program now that MLCad
was stable :-)
Many of us (myself included) encouraged Michael to polish MLCad into
the gem that it is today, and I have to believe that some of that
effort is going to come back to him soon.
I do not know the inner workings of TLG, but I get the following
impressions from reading posts and news releases...
1. TLG is consolidating manufacturing to reduce overhead
2. TLG is getting rid of unpopular lines (ZNAP, some of the software)
I personally like ZNAP...
3. TLG is partnering with established software vendors to release
better software.
4. TLG is tapping the AFOL market to find individuals with a passion
for the brick.
This can only be good for our community. MLCad is a really good bit of
software, and it would only be good business for LEGO to buy the product,
hire Michael and a few other AFOLs, and spin out a great CAD program.
They are just figuring out now that the Web makes it easy to release
software
and that the marketing effort required is MUCH smaller than what it used to
be.
The precedent for this is Palm Computing's purchase of the CodePilot
simulator.
This is a program that takes a binary image from a Palm device and simulates
it
on the PC. It was developed by a hobbyist, became the defacto standard for
development, and then Palm bought it because they could not duplicate
it for anywhere near what they would pay for it.
So, if LEGO is listening, and I _know_ they are, this is the real dawn
of the new millenium! Welcome!
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbForth>
Buy "Extreme Mindstorms: an Advanced Guide to Lego Mindstorms"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893115844/hempeldesigngrou>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Rideout wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> >
> > here's the good stuff:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/press/
>
>
> Anybody know what the "Request BETA copy" link is for at the top of the
> following page:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/videogallery.asp
>
> a BETA copy of what? the 3D modeler?
I clicked the link (hey, why not), and yes, it's a way[1] to request 'BETA
tape'. I assume it's what Kevin posted, a professional format video tape.
--
Steve
1) A somewhat brain-dead way to file a request. They c/should have put an
html page behind, explaining what was being requested.
| | | | | | |
