 | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) NOT that it's probably relevant to the discussion one way or the other, but... :-) Back before TLG was into their current practice of saving on packaging*, the boxes had what I always referred to as the "Display tray", a plastic molded tray (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Sorry. I misinterpreted your initial post. I just went back and reread it, and see that it doesn't actually say that the user used 4107488.dat, but it does seems to imply this (at least to me). (...) I had forgotten about that new format for (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) The point is that the model does *not* use 4107488.dat because that is not the right shape for the model...... If everyone only ever used 4107488.dat, I would not have brought it up. (...) Chris has told me how to recognize the complete parts. (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote: <snip> (...) This is good to know. Sorry if I missed that. (...) Kevin (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) purely a header standardisation exercise, although minor changes were made to part descriptions as part of this. Chris (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Well, it's not shipped completely disassembled (arms and hands are pre-attached to the torso, and legs are attached to hips). However, I have certainly never seen them shipped completely assembled as a minifig (except for the glued keychains, (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Whether the Header Specification is ambiguous or not, this is how I believe I have implemented the "Shortcut" filetype in the !LDRAW_ORG line. So for the 2008-01 official library onwards, grep '!LDRAW_ORG Shortcut' * > foo should be reliable. (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Design Pad v2.0 Beta 4
|
|
(...) Since there is question about how LDDP should mirror, what is the expected behavior? If my method is unexpected then how should the process be changed? (...) Can you give me more specifics? I added this since the last beta so it might not work (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) <SNIP> (...) Yes, they should, but the "mistake" was made eight years ago, before we had the clarity that time brings to standards implementation. The same applies to 754-756, at least. For backward compatibility reasons we can never remove (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) I guess they should be, but they are not. (...) Fair enough. I didn't know they were always shipped disassembled. (...) The only files that LPub opens and analyzes are model and submodel files. All other opening and analyzing of part files is (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) Well, or maybe it's me generalizing from getting lucky once. Looking at PaB, 1x14's are currently 28 cents per piece. On Bricklink, right now, I can find them for as low as 15 cents, but not in anything like the quantities I'd needed. In fact (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Adder-substractor module with the new 3L differential
|
|
I read somewhere that the new differential was not good to build an adder-substractor... so I was forced to try! Here is the result: (URL) movie: (URL) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Shouldn't 680.dat, 681.dat, and 682.dat all be in the parts/s directory? They don't represent real pieces of plastic (or rubber in this case), so I don't understand why they are modeled as such. Or do synthesized sub-parts get treated (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) I think that's not quite the point that was being made. The point is that selling individual bricks to individual consumers is *grossly* more expensive for the company, not that it's cheaper, and hence would need to sell sets to keep their (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) I didn’t say that they should stop selling the normal sets. I just asked for an additional service above and beyond that... But of course you have a point regarding the need for profit. Perhaps such an offer should be available only to certain (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PnP, an NXT-based "industrial" robot
|
|
(...) Thank you. Like I said, you guys (rtl) are at least partially responsible (or to blame) for this, so I thought I'd flag it your way. (...) Well, speaking of computer angst, I only realized after the fact that PnP can literally push it's own (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) Let's take a moment to ask, what's wrong with "Play"? Why do we get so defensive about it? None of my friends who play basketball feel the need to qualify "Play ball" with some explaination about how they "design and carryout team sports (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) Well, if you include a margin for profit (which does seem fair), this *does* exist - it's called Pick-a-Brick, and you can do it on-line via S@H. Yes, I *know* it doesn't have all the elements, or all the colors... but it has loads more than (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) YES but LEGO wouldn't be around if they don't make some profits right? How at production cost would they survive. (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) To be honest, in my opinion there’s nothing particularly "adult" about those sets - they’re just models (albeit rather impressive models) with a high brick count and an even higher price tag. What I would really like to see, is the possibility (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
