 | | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Every time I've seen Qualification 2, I've thought it needed clarification. How about: "Served as a reviewer on the Parts Tracker and posted at least 5 reviews for each of at least 2 official updates." After all, just because someone only (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) Part updates are currently every two months. 0303 (due to come out in about a week, I think?) will probably be a small update, since the Tracker hasn't been up for weeks. . . -- TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Help needed with creating parts
|
|
(...) Hi Jeroen: I think I'm missing something--are you asking for someone to render models or to create new parts? Dave! (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
(...) I agree that we have to avoid that risk you refer to, and I would suggest that be part of the LSC charter. As for the steering committee, I'm not sure the post from 2 years ago is really valid anymore, and would suggest the community start (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) Draft Proposal
|
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:27:28AM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote: [snip very good points] (...) Wayne, this is a great idea, and I would support this kind of process. Dan (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
