 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) it was semi-automatic - I used vimdiff to find all the differences, and marked them up manually. Didn't take long. But since it is manual, it's theoretically possible that I missed some - I promise, nothing was left out intentionally. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I guess I'm worried about the LSC defining a standard that has no meaning. Without the community accepting the standard, what's the point in having it defined? I do agree with later posts, especially wayne's - the vote is likely to become a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed with creating parts
|
|
(...) I know it's not a good idea, but it's for the trainposter and detail isn't priority there; the trains are about 200 pixels high. Again, I can send high-res scans of the BI and pictures of the parts. If you are really intrested in doing it I (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed with creating parts
|
|
jeroen de haan <info@digitalbricks.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:HDtI4o.14K6@lugnet.com... (...) I can only speak for me, but making parts (no patterns) only from pictures isn't a good idea. Maybe that this is sufficient for mock-ups. Which (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) This is more what I was considering... a way for those who may or may not have been authoring Lego Parts to get a chance to be on the standards body. After all, its possible, but unlikely that another use for the program could overshadow the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
