|
|
 | | Re: Cathedral of Ice MOC
|
| Thanks Rob, I've emailed you the instructions for loading the special parts and all the .dat files. If anyone else wants them, its easy for me to re-forward this email . Rob Drechsel <littleshrimp27@hotmail.com> wrote in message (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.build, lugnet.cad.dat.models, lugnet.build.arch)
| | | | | Re: Cathedral of Ice MOC
|
| (...) Wow, this is incredible! I particulary like the cross on the roof with the buttresses "flowing" out from it. Thats a nice architectual touch. (...) I'm interested! Rob robo2705@hotmail.com (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.build, lugnet.cad.dat.models, lugnet.build.arch)
| | | | | Re: Cathedral of Ice MOC
|
| Okay, so for some people it would be toothpicks under the fingernails, for others tiny drops of water dropping on their foreheads, and for still others bright flashing lights that deprive them of sleep -- but for Brad it would be those full round (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.build, lugnet.cad.dat.models, lugnet.build.arch)
| | | | | Re: Cathedral of Ice MOC
|
| Thanks for all the compliments. This one actually took several days to complete. Most of my CAD creations are done in a few hours. I guess CAD building is much faster than real building. I'm looking forward to getting access to my entire REAL (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.build, lugnet.cad.dat.models, lugnet.build.arch)
| | | | | Re: Cathedral of Ice MOC
|
| Ay-ya-yie, Brad! Sheesh!! I'm just speechless. As *usual*. When I was browsing the "recent" brickshelf stuff I just *knew* that had to be another one of your designs (before I checked! really! ;-), so I waited for the post to show up. ;-) Now, now, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.build, lugnet.cad.dat.models, lugnet.build.arch)
| | | | | Cathedral of Ice MOC
|
| This is my most complex CAD structure yet. Here is an overall view: (URL) is the index to all the pictures: (URL) call it the Cathedral of Ice because the two towers look like huge icicles. I based this building on the general shape of Cologne (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.build, lugnet.cad.dat.models, lugnet.build.arch) !
| | | | | Re: Wires anyone?
|
| (...) Are you sure about that? As I say in the documentation for the Bezier curve generator (follow the link which is called "Advanced useage"), the placement of the control points are not actually used, only the vector from the start to the control (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Yes, just like when you go to the Terms of Use page on LUGNET. (...) No, it's not like you're giving away a physical object, you're just allowing it to be redistributed under another license. (...) Ok. (...) As long as users can still use (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Wires anyone?
|
| "Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3wvdpp04a.fsf@...ldomain... (...) I changed the 50 to 43, and I was able to bend the wires more drastically. I also created a part for the 2x2 brick w/o the wire. Then I place (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| Is this about a license for parts-builders or the format of the DAT files ? Personally I think the current DAT file structure is the best there is . Of course one would want higher quality outputs from Povray like the heads i've seen in other (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Rather than harm, I think we owe you thanks for having dug in a bit to get another perspective! Thanks! (...) I disagree here, as we have seen in some recent instances of differing versions of parts, we can argue that LDraw parts are artistic (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G55oJJ.M9@lugnet.com... (...) cost (...) is (...) The "user" base may be small, but the "viewer" base is much larger. How many times have you seen an LDraw'n model and thought, "I have got to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Right. Now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. (...) True. For instance me. But if a workable royalty scheme and a searchable catalog were introduced, I think I'd be designing like mad and putting one after another up (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | MLCAD Suggestions
|
| After several weeks of heavy MLCAD use, I offer these suggestions for future versions (or perhaps these features are available and I just haven't found them): Decimals for position: currently if a part's possition contains decimals, pressing one of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| I hear you clearly now Larry. However, on reflection, I still think the cost of providing a ldraw import ability into CREATOR II (Son of Creator – or is that blasphemy?) will be more than the benefits it would supply to the _public_. You have to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| I will be the debian maintainer of leocad, so this issue is of interest to me. I asked a few questions about the parts library on the debian-legal mailing list. Here are the questions, answers, and my opinions about them. Please note that I mean no (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) I'm sorry, I have to agree with you that it is indeed universally applicable, and yet... not actually relevant to the real question. The real question is this: What is the expected benefit of developing and releasing a CAD program - that is in (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| It is a moot point, but I view economics as: “A means by which alternatives may be structured so that a decision may be reached.” Therefore the sunk cost rule is universally applicable. If the conclusion is that the existing CAD set-up is not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Right, but that's an implied understanding, not an explicit agreement. Basically, there should be a "part submission" page on ldraw.org. One of the features of that page should be a link to a full contributor's agreement. Another necessary (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Just to raise a point, I have both, as both have their place. (...) Great list of attributes. However, they didn't hire Leonardo, for whatever reason, so we may or may not be able to count on them actually happening. (...) I've some (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
