 | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —John VanZwieten
|
| | | I would suggest just lugnet.cad.dat, but either way is fine with me. -John Van Sproaticus wrote in message <370297E0.B6E235A0@g...es.com>... (...) (26 years ago, 31-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | [Added lugnet.cad.dev to newsgroups list] (...) A little bit, yes, but not a lot. Since you bring it up, now a good time to give it a second round of consideration. Here are some of my thoughts: One thing that would work out nicely in the .parts (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:24:43 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote: [Big snip] I think there is some value in classifying real TLG models separately from MOCs. You, Todd, could have lugnet.cad.dat.sets lugnet.cad.dat.creations Which aren't (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I like those. I think "sets" is a lot clearer than anything containing the letters "tlg", especially when placed alongside "parts" or "elements" and "creations." It's also nice and short, easy to type. :) OK, let's summarize all of the (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snipped "summary"> <following not to be taken seriously in any way> Summarize? I started to read that "summary" and quickly sensed something amiss. Glancing up at the subject header, I noted the length of the post - 186 lines. Whoa! That is (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think that having a cad.dat.creations would be a great idea but I have to agree, What would happen to cad.dat? (...) I think these belong in this subcatagory. (...) I think that these should be considered MOCs, but with the set as a (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, your Hoth Battle scene is a great example of the types of things that could go in this group. In fact, your battle scene was what inspired the idea for the group. --Todd (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | | Gee, I'm honored :) I could put on my webpage "This scene inspired the lugnet.cad.dat.scenes newsgroup list" :) A little of topic, one thing that would be nice is if on the "new message" section on the web there was a pull-down menu for the (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Which lists do you mean? Messages? Newsgroups? Which "new message" section do you mean? The traffic report page (URL) some new section that doesn't yet exist? What does a pull-down menu give you that a list of hyperlinks doesn't? --Todd (...) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Ryan Dennett
|
| | | | | | | | I mean when you go to type and post a new message, and by lists I meant newsgroups. That way you can just choose what newsgroup(s) you wan the message to go to, rather than typing each one. Is that clearer? Ryan ***...*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***...*** (...) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah. Yes, that is much clearer. Unfortunately, the pull-down list would have to contain either all 650+ newsgroups (over 20KB of HTML data) or would have to remember a list of frequently used newsgroups on a user-by-user basis. The first option (...) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <Snipped the Lengthy but interesting Message> What about new Primitives? Would they go into the .parts subcatagory? Also, I'm somewhat talented at making the small bitmaps for new parts. Would they (Dat (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I would think so...rather than .parts.prim and .parts.bmp -- unless there's a real clear advantage to having these separated. --Todd (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Put them all together. Steve (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | | Primitives are handled by the primitives group, and should be sent to the group. I see no purpose in having them in the cad.dat.parts. What do you mean by "Dat versions of bitmaps"? -John Van Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Bitmaps that have been run through a BMP2DAT tool. Steve (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Otherwise known as TBOML The Bane Of My Life. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 15-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Primitives are a special case. Right now, consideration and approval of any new primitive file is done by consensus of a small group of part authors. Anyone may suggest a primitive to that group. And new members can be added to that group, (...) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet ... (...) What about renderings, and rendered scenes? Will there be a place for them too? For example: (URL) Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) of fun if the file sizes didn't get out of control and if there were a nice way to closely associate .dat files with .pov files (maybe allowing both in a single post?). --Todd (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | (...) a (...) L3P output is huge though, usually 300 Kb - 1 Mb. I'm not sure I'd have the patience to wait for those to download. It would also be very slow before you could view the model if there was some way to link them to POV-Ray (like LDLite (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | Bram Lambrecht skrev i meddelandet <19990413.165205.509...no.com>... (...) have (...) I was thinking more in the line of thumbs and links. -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | I was wondering what was taking Todd so long to reply (he usually pounces on questions directed his way) and now I see he was writing a thesis on the topic. Thanks for the in-depth response. The major reason I see for separating out parts and (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | i think that we should have a group for MOC's, a group for parts posts and a group for TLG sets. (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | I agree, and I think cad.dat serves very well for MOC's. -John Van jonathan wilson wrote in message ... (...) (26 years ago, 8-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
