 | | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
When it comes to Lego I'm with Tim... ; ) God Bless, Nathan (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: School Buses - both hovercraft and normal
|
|
(...) Reminds me of something NASA might do ; ) Great work on both models, I slightly favour the town version (only because of my deep hatred of space erhm, I mean only because of my personal bias against futuristic progressions that retain so much (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.town, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) Both halves? Do adult fans represent 50% of the market? Cheers Richie Dulin CO Legeaux (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) And they may come back on Tracker as a new version when an author improves an already certified part. So often you have to deal with two version of the same part, one official and one (improved) on PT. Philo (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) That has always happened in the past, and will presumably happen with the next update. The parts tracker "unofficial parts library" only contains new (unreleased) files and that have been modified since the last update. This update was (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
Hi, I'm the author of SR 3D Builder and I was thinking that the update were including part corrections and fixes at least for the official parts, but I understand that is a huge work. Since my appl loads the whole part library to build images for (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) That's exactly it. If you're looking for black 2x4 bricks, the market is flooded with them, so BL prices have settled pretty low (and the rarer parts in a given set help offset those low prices so that sellers will still find it worth parting (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) Well, let's check the math on this, shall we? Now, you'll have to excuse me, but I'm going to reorder your list by year of release, because it'll help me to make my point, but I will not be omitting anything: (...) 2008 (...) 2007 (...) 2006 (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
|
(...) But that's exactly the point. It's not that they weren't aware of us at all. It's that they thought we were an inconsequencial fraction of the total market, and thus not worth catering to at all. And strictly in terms of the total customer (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: PnP, an NXT-based "industrial" robot
|
|
(...) Nah. Pressing the OFF button is OK. It's when it starts pressing the ON button that you have to worry. That's why one of my personal rules is "the deadlier the robot, the shorter the extension cord." BTW, not only is the 'bot nice, simple and (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
