 | | Re: New (well...) Part: x717.dat - Brick 2 x 14 with Groove
|
|
(...) Hehe. For what it's worth, that meta only modifies LDView's behavior if the file isn't stored in the standard LDraw Parts directory. However, since I assume some people keep their unofficial parts out of their parts directory, it can be a (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Specification of LEGO tracks
|
|
(...) I don't have the information, but I cross-posted this response to lugnet.trains in an attempt to give you access to an audience that also might be likely to have an answer. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: New (well...) Part: x717.dat - Brick 2 x 14 with Groove
|
|
(...) *lol* I had to read the header many times to see what you meant... :) /Tore (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Specification of LEGO tracks
|
|
Hello, I'm developing a solution for designing model railroad trackplans on the Mac. There have been several requests to support the LEGO train-systems. Maybe somebody in this group can give some hints where to get the precise specifications of the (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Disclaimer
|
|
I will soon be adding some instructions to the Brick Instruction Portal that I will be offering for sale. It occurred to me that I'd need a suitable disclaimer. I checked on Bip and found their wasn't one so I thought if I post on Lugnet I can get a (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.publish, lugnet.cad, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x716.dat - 0 Brick 2 x 4 x 1 Ring
|
|
(...) I think so. I don't actually have these parts, but I was just looking at some last Saturday. Here's a comparison pic (URL) TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New (well...) Part: x717.dat - Brick 2 x 14 with Groove
|
|
(...) Wow, you weren't kidding about old. I assume the studs don't have logos on the real one, since you went so far as to avoid using the stud primitive. I've never seen the part, so the only comment I have isn't related to the geometry. Any (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x716.dat - 0 Brick 2 x 4 x 1 Ring
|
|
(...) Thanks! Well, it took some hours to make. (...) Oh. I didn't know there was a variant without cutouts. Do they look exactly the same apart from the cutouts? /Tore (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New (well...) Part: x717.dat - Brick 2 x 14 with Groove [DAT]
|
|
Now we're talking *old* LEGO! 8-) 0 Brick 2 x 14 with Groove 0 Name: x717.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Unufficial Part 0 BFC CERTIFY CCW 0 KEYWORDS vintage 4 16 140 24 20 136 24 16 -136 24 16 -140 24 20 4 16 -140 24 20 -136 24 16 -136 24 -16 -140 (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x716.dat - 0 Brick 2 x 4 x 1 Ring
|
|
(...) Looks nice. (...) 'Brick 2 x 4 Half Round with Cutouts' would fit in with 3063, 2577, and 30357. Alternatively, "Round Brick 4 x 4 Half with Cutouts" or "Round Brick 2 x 4 Half with Cutouts" (depending on how you look at it) could get the (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New Part: x716.dat - 0 Brick 2 x 4 x 1 Ring [DAT]
|
|
At last, I lay my greedy hands on one of this rare, vintage macarony variant! I just had to LDraw it at once... A better name, anyone? 0 Brick 2 x 4 x 1 Ring 0 Name: x716.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Unofficial Part 0 KEYWORDS macaroni, round, (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(URL) anyone have *any* feedback on these ideas? Orion? Please let me know (even in a private e-mail if you want) if you think these are viable alternatives or if they're totally not worth considering! I'd appreciate any comment! Thanks, --Ryan (URL) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think this is a moot point, but... The rule could be written so that a contributor must allow/license their work for publication on the contest website, for people to view/examine in relation to the contest, but not for further (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
(...) I think putting Motor Cutout in the keywords would work, if we can't reasonably fit it in the part title. (...) OK, I think Stop and Proceed are OK for the names. (...) So the light bulb can be physically removed from the complete part? But (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LGEO Problem in POV-Ray
|
|
(...) The error occurs with this code from the your file: #if (QUAL > 0) #declare _4319_dot_dat_slope = object { // Hinge Bar 8 with Split Rod Holder lg_4319_slope matrix <0,0,-20/LG_BRICK_WIDTH, -20/LG_BRICK_WIDTH,0,0, 0,-24/LG_BRICK_HEIGHT,0, (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | LGEO Problem in POV-Ray
|
|
Hi, I've just been getting familiar will LCad & POV-Ray the past few days and things have been moving along fine but recently I've run into a problem with a certain model/piece. In using the LGEO library's I get a lot of undeclared identifier's when (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Show 3d lego models in the web
|
|
Nice job. About the active x thing, I managed to gain access to your page by going into into Tools-Internet Options-Security-Custom Level and then scrolling down to active x and making everything on 'prompt'. Now when I go to your page, a few (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
(...) Bingo! There's my problem: not enought constraints. I have been using very few constraints to make my wires, because I thought they turned out better that way - boy was I wrong! Thanks a million for the tip! David J. Perdue (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) UUUUUPS!!! big, huge, enormous, gigantic typo! what I tried to say was "-SaveSnapshot=C:\......bmp(png)" BTW setting the quotes blanks work also fine in the path name. there are no problems with a command like this: "-SaveSnapshot=C:\My (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Here's the correct link: (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Are they available on the net? According to the Wayback Machine (URL) were once at (URL) but that link is dead now. Don (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
I just discovered that I forgot to put the following in the change history for LDView 2.1 (it's there now in the on-line version of the change history): Added ability to screen saver to select a directory and have a random model from that directory (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, David Perdue wrote: David, This problem is tops of the list of things to fix. Kevin (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
(...) Larry is right. The cross sections are not overlapping as they are supposed to. This can happen if the wire is bent too hard, or the constraints are too far apart. LPub uses a large fixed size array when synthesizing between any two (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
(...) This is actually an lsynth problem. Try using more constraints so it packs the segments between the two constraints more densly. Kevin (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) Thanks. I'm glad you appreciate it. (...) By default, zooming is limited in such a way that the camera can never get closer to the model than its calculated radius. The previous calculated radius was based on a rectangular box around the (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) Actually you can view the current month's contestants without being a member of the website. Simply go to the contests page at LDraw.org: (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
(...) Yes, the gaps are where the wires bend more. I figured that the bending was responsible for the gaps. (...) Hmmmm...going through all the gaps and trying to fix them probably won't work. I am fully synthesizing my models, so there is ALOT of (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) Wow! Congratulations! At some point i have believed LDView is at a climax and can't improve further. How wrong i was. The improvement is constant, far beyond what i could imagine on my old hardware. It seems i can zoom much deeper with this (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Yes adding unoffical parts into the .mpd file is doable and it is being polite to due this if you are using unoffical parts and making your model public. -AHui LDraw Help Desk (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
(...) Synthesised wire and tubing, if I recall correctly, is achieved by placing a large number of "primitive" elements along the spline that defines the centerline of the desired shape, aligned so they are tangential to the spline at that point, (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
(...) I'm no expert in maga-pov or lpub, but if everything else looks ok, I'd just erase these white spots with Photoshop or whatever picture editing software you use. Would this be more work than remodeling the cables, or less? hth Allister (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Sounds fair enough. I for one would be unlikely to pick through the .ldr file for every entrant anyway, but it would be cool to get a closer look at the winning entry. (...) This is true enough, although I still can't see why a rendering (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LPub/LSynth/Mega-POV Question
|
|
Hello, I’m doing some rendering for Building Instructions, and am coming across a little problem that I am not quite sure how to resolve. Here is the big picture: I am doing extremely high quality BI’s, using LPub, which means that the resolution is (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree entirely with Orion here. And I also think that making the LDR file available for the winning entry would be a great idea, but *only with the permission of the entrant.* I recommend it be strongly encouraged. (...) [snip] (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The one problem I see here is that the contest allows unofficial parts (or unofficial versions of parts), which the coordinator might not have, and different submitters might want to use different versions of unofficial parts. The problem goes (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I got the point, but I'm not completely convinced. Anyhow, I really only suggested the LDRotM contest because I'm afraid the model sellers might be influential enough to eliminate even the *option* of publishing the LDR files in the MotM (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) Er... No soup for you, Dave! At least not the way it's currently implemented, I don't think. Why wouldn't you want to be able to vote, though? Do your civic duty, Dave! More seriously, sounds like a good suggestion, maybe Orion can fix it. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) But what if I just want to look at the pretty pictures, without voting? Dave! (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) It is necessary to have a logon to the website in order to vote using the website functionality, which has been the mechanism in place since the contest was relaunched on the new site, which supports user logon and requires it for access to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) Am I missing something, or is it necessary to be a member of LDraw.org in order simply to view the Models and/or Scenes of the Month? If so, how long has this been the case? Thanks for any info. Dave! (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) irrelevent. (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Actually Don, I agree with all those points and am in favor of authors having the option to post their DAT/LDR/MPD files along with the images. My point is that within the scope of a completed model, having a contest on how the model is (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree. I like Orion's last proposal that allows for DAT/LDR/MPD to be available along with the views. If people don't want to share, and it diminishes their ability to win, that is their choice. A highly superior model without DAT/LDR/MPD (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Don, I thought about this for a while and have decided to retract my positive swing on this. The whole, dat required or not discussion is somewhat moot IMHO. For a given complete physical model there are only so many reasonable ways the model (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I could even submit LPub or LSynth source code...... this is getting rather silly. I think it needs to be restricted to DAT/MPD format files. Within that scope I really like the idea. Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree whole heartedly with Orion on this one. Just because I submit a model for a contest, should not mean that I give up ownership of the model. I'm pretty sure that I would give away the DATs for any models that I submit, but I'd like that (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The one thing that I would like to see, is that if the author agrees, have the DAT available during voting. I think that would allow better access to the models, and also motivate more people to actually try installing LDraw, which in turn can (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
With 64 messages in 4 days, the discussion regarding by proposed changes is good. I'm posting this message to refocus the discussion and tie all the fragments together. Here's a point by point breakdown of my proposal and some thoughts about the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Hey, there's a nifty idea. Further, the FoTM (if structured to encourage explanation of techniques and so forth in the writeup) could end up being awarded to a file that didn't necssarily make a spectacular display but that did demonstrate (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) How about three contests: SotM, MotM and LDR file of the Month? (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) That's unjustified (as in, you haven't justified that view, merely stated it) and dismissive and not really a good attitude to take, in my view. (...) um, 6 out of 17 (see (URL) ) isn't really "mostly". It might be a plurality but it's way (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I guess I just disagree with you there :) I think it's better to have a better contest, and perhaps lose a few entries of those who want to sell their models. The increased quality of the interface is worth it, imo. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Precisely my point, and precisely why putting them on an uneven footing will diminsh (the number of) entries. Better to have a level playing field, one way or the other, and better to set that field to maximise the number of entries. (...) All (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) But entries that are displayed as picture only WILL, by definition, have a diminished effect. It's similar to the difference between seeing a picture of a model as opposed to holding it in your hand. Of course that the model taht allows me to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) of course not. Prior to this thread being posted on lugnet. [snip] (...) Opinions voiced in a private discussion ARE irrelavent once the discussion goes public. If the owners of the opinions want to share them, they're welcome to do so (and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I hope not. It's certainly not my overt intent! I think sharing's great, if you want to share. I just don't want to see authors put in a position where they are forced to share either to participate at all, or in order to be on an equal (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) It would seem like you are defending here your right to sell your models *over* the rights of others to share theirs. Granted, this only applies to a very specific instance (MOTM contest), not the community as a whole. But I still can't agree (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well, more kudos to Orion for opening the discussion then, even if it got off-topic. I have not changed my views on the matter, but at the same I have certainly gained insight into the mindset of other community members. At the end of the day, (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Message to Paul Easter
|
|
(...) It must be because of my ISP's new email filters. Make sure your message says something like "ldraw" or "lugnet". They should make it through then. If not, I have emailed you using my backup email address. Paul (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) I went and looked, and found a couple of things. On video cards with good OpenGL support, it only loads the model once, but it compiles the model twice. I'll have this fixed in the next version. (You can tell if you have one of these video (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) But not allowing it discriminates against larger or more detailed entries. Take a look at the December models. There's no way to see all the details of two of the models without the LDR file. You're just leveling the field in your favor (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I am not so keen on it, it sort of smacks of potential discrimination against entries that choose not to do so. If we are going for a level playing field let's get completely level. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well that wasn't just me. Steve and I had discussed it for some time and had wanted to move in that direction. The change actually got a bit of help from Michael Lachmann who asked, and Steve and I gave a thumbs up, then others followed suit. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) You're welcome. As an aside to other users that have feature ideas, I believe that Willy suggested/requested all of the above. I tend to be fairly arbitrary about which feature requests get implemented and which ones don't (I'm more likely to (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) I have no problem doing this. Not sure how big the file will be at the moment, since I can't access the repository from work, but I don't mind creating a tgz of the actual repository. I assume by your request that you know how to add the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
--snip-- (...) Not completely true. Orion's original post was to get ideas/feedback on his proposed changes. In the end it will be up to him to decide how he sets up the MOTM rules. Why? Simple, this decision is not up to a committee! Case in point (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) How do you feel about requiring the LDR file in order to generate standardized pics, but keeping the publishing of the LDR file itself optional? Would that also prevent you from submitting? (...) I don't buy that analogy. It's not your (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) Hmm, this might just be the excuse I needed to learn a bit about QT. No promises though, I'm easily distracted... (...) What about a tarball or zip file of the LDView portions of your CVS repository? I use a nightly script on the sourceforge (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) Sure. That would be spectacular. For the most part, all the Linux-specific stuff is in the QT directory (I try to keep all the common code cross-platform, but I'm sure there are problems caused by me not actually having compiled in Linux (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Hr0Mxq.1qoL@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) understanding (...) discussions (...) to be (...) necessary. I too think this is an unreasonable restriction. It has been a while (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I was, and still am intending to do exactly this, enter Motm and sell instructions for the MOC. I hope to win MOTM and use the forum to generate publicity. I don't see any problem with this. My MOC is quite large and complicated and I've spent (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Scenes, I guess, as you would think of them now, but some (all?) of them may have been submitted prior to the MoTM/SoTM split. But I've got one in mind for MoTM right now, and I choose MoTM because I think it would be poorly served to be in a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) You're talking about a different medium. Not everyone has the 21 inch, high resolution monitor required to make complex or intricate models look good when rendered. The use of pictures meant to be displayed on a typical computor monitor tends (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) Are you looking for help with that? (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Hmmm, now that you mention it, I do recall something of yours up for a vote. Did you submit a model, or just scenes? Did you ever submit as a model something you were selling? And hey, do we have archives of the old entries? (...) I wouldn't (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) It seems as though my first point was missed entirely. The presentation is as crucial to the model as the model itself. The first example I would like to use comes from my profession- design competitions. Rules for submissions in almost all (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Several, actually. (...) I think it is an issue, and worse, I think it highlights an underlying issue of larger import. In an ideal world the Steering Committee would either have given Orion authority to organize the contest as he sees fit, or (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Nah, the work is easily automated. -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I don't think it will fix much. There will still be nothing to prevent people from selling kits or high quality posters. Since this issue is only partially addressed by making the source public, I don't think changing the rules of the MOTM (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think you're signing yourself up for a lot of work but it's a terrifically nifty idea! (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I would too, IF they weren't the original author. And making the dat public enables that sort of behaviour far too easily. Hence my aversion to it. On the other hand, if they were the author, I think it's perfectly fine. If your model is good (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Nothing. That doesn't make it right though. And as part of the proposed change (which I do like a lot, btw!), we have a chance to fix this as well. (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView Version 2.1 Released ***
|
|
(...) [SNIP] (...) [COPY'N'PASTE] (...) :-)))...))) many, many THX for adding those!!! (...) this seams not being true for the command line. actually now it loads the model twice, taking twice as much time ;-) (...) superhint for all the absolute (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) What's preventing people from doing this now (for both contests)? -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Why? If they don't want to publish the DAT, they can still enter the Scene categrory, because that's all you get without the DAT file, one view of the model (AKA a scene). My personal favorite part of lugnet is clicking on the DAT links and (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) limit the submissions from those who are unwilling/unable to install the specified program on their machine. This is why I liked Larry's idea to submit the DAT code instead and to have the contest coordinator do the renders. This way, if the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) So you wouldn't have a problem with someone saying (on their e-shop) "buy the instructions to build this winner of the official Ldraw.org MOTM contest winner"? I would. (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) If the model has commercial ties before or during the contest then I might (note the word might) have a problem with the submission. In my opinion, the reasoning behind an author's decision to keep the source private is irrelevent and not the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) If you feel that POV rendering gives too many degrees of freedom, why not define MOTM as L3LAB, Ortographic, renderings. Then there's no discussion of landscape, sky, Anton Raves' parts, etc. etc. L3LAB rendering also shows the construction of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Let's please make this explicitly clear: It is then all right to use the contest as a means to advertise a commercial model or a commercial product based on the model? This is a glaring pitfall if sources are not requested. I thought it would (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) To which post? Your post? (...) All the rest of the thread before your post is irrelevant? I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, you may want to consider a rewording to clarify. (...) I disagree. While they may not have been the decision (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I found this question somewhat surprising, frankly. (...) I'm hoping that it only appears to be the central issue because the rest of the proposal has met with general agreement and that if this issue can be resolved, it will be speedily (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Agreed. -Tim (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The loss is the chance for us to see the creative effort of another and possibly be inspired by it. The fact that this has become the central issue of my proposed changes flabbergasts me. It takes absolutly no effort on our part to honor an (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with Jacob. Also, the discussion prior to this post doesn't really matter - a decision wasn't made in that discussion, so what people who participated in it thought is really irrelevant. If someone chooses not to participate in the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) OK, I'll accept that and agree that it's a goal of the contest. Going forward though, I think we're still suffering from not having formal organization in place, in an ideal world this proposal would have passed through the steering committee (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with Larry about this issue. I consider imposing a restiction like this to be both excessively exculsionary and extremely petty. -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Message to Paul Easter
|
|
Paul, I am trying to contact you using pneaster@knoxy.net but keep getting my E-mail back? Stragely enough it keeps saying user unknown and message undeliverable. Can you contact me, please? Jaco jmolen@zonnet.nl (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well. We may have forgotten to write it down, but I remember it as one of the ideas, when we originally started MOTM (and I wrote the first two versions of the software for MOTM/SOTM). (...) It is kind of hard to arrive at consensus during (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
