 | | Re: Automatic unofficial part detection?
|
|
(...) I guess that is the origin of all my troubles ... At the risk of testing your patience (a flu keeps me from being very coherent today) - how would I be able to see parts whose files are outside those dirs in the Mlcad parts library window? (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Animation posted now
|
|
(...) Here we go. Very unlike the Superbowl version but it is a cool exercise in using PoV-Ray's animation features. Still a long cry from Steve's stuff. :) (URL) to maintain a fairly low bitrate (256KB) and high clarity I had to use the Indeo 5.1 (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.animation)
|
| |
| | Re: PoV-Ray ignoring 'translate'?
|
|
(...) Miguel, Awesome, thanks a lot. I had boosted it up to 37 in testing and saw no increase...now I know why. Thanks!! Animation shall be posted soon, hopefully today. (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Automatic unofficial part detection?
|
|
(...) You could just MPD the model. MPDWorkshop will include in the MPD any parts that are not in the P or PARTS folders. This is how I distribute my models the official sets. Note that this will only work if you haven't mixed the unofficial parts (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: PoV-Ray ignoring 'translate'?
|
|
Hi Mike, Your increments are too small. Try translate <0,0,70*clock> It worked for me! (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Automatic unofficial part detection?
|
|
Hi all, Some visitors to my site have asked whether it'd be possible to include in the ldraw model files that I provide the unofficial parts used in them. As this is a very sensible request, I was wondering if there is any way to do this (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | PoV-Ray ignoring 'translate'?
|
|
I'm sure you're all getting sick of me by now. Bear with me...this animation should look pretty cool when it's done. While we were watching the superbowl this year, one of my relations commented on the little animation used to introduce the players (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | 3 new primitives for Technic Link Chain Old [DAT]
|
|
I forgot to include the three new primitives, I created for the Technic Link Chain Old: 3-8ring1.dat 3-8ring5.dat 3-8rin12.dat 0 Ring 1 x 0.375 0 Name: 3-8ring1.dat 0 Author: Niels Karsdorp 0 Unofficial Primitive 0 BFC CERTIFY CW 4 16 1 0 0 0.9239 0 (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) Not sensing any disagreement here - so if no one's spoken up by the end of the weekend, I'm going to add these clauses to the drafts and call for ratification. -Tim (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) That's a good idea. Unfortunately the sky sphere also creates a goodly amount of light, creating shadows of its own. The spotlight seems to have taken care of the stone look to the minifig, so I think I'll just stick with it the way it is. (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Minifig Ice Pick
|
|
Hello everyone. Any body know if there is a dat file for the minifig Ice pick part # x170? Thanks in advance. (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | New part: Technic Link Chain Old [DAT]
|
|
0 Technic Link Chain Old 0 Name: x.dat 0 Author: Niels Karsdorp <nkp@dds.nl> 0 Unofficial Element 0 BFC CERTIFY CW 1 16 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 rect.dat 1 16 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 stud.dat 1 16 0 0 -10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 stud.dat 1 16 8.5 7.5 16 (...) (21 years ago, 7-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I'm not sure you're right there. I think Steve may have been trying to achieve a specific dithered look, different from the effect created by the pre-defined metal code in say ldview or ldglite, probably to better differentiate some static (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Whoops. Silly me. It's amazing the tricks memory can play on you ;-). (...) While this is still probably do-able, I think my original argument about the possible creation of future tags still holds (unless you're also agreeing to the enforced (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Well, I don't think that qualifies as an argument for its inclusion in the new !COLOUR statement, since those are already covered by the more precise pre-defined materials. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) One way is to insert a (dim) lightsource exactly at the camera point - this way everything you can see is also lighted. By making this light dimmer than other lights, you can still have shadows, but not so articulated. -- Anders Isaksson, (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Developers! What softwares? ([LSC] Colour Def...)
|
|
(...) Why not just RGB instead of the not too intuitive VALUE? (I mean, it colud be any parameter value) Developers, what softwares will be updated to support this? L3P? ML-Cad? L3Lab? LDView? ...? /Tore (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) After giving some thought to this - I can't think of alternate wording that would really do the issue justice, and not end up unnecessarily lengthy and awkward. If we start looking for CoI under every rock, I think that's taking it too far. My (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't want to specify that some parameters are order-specific, and others aren't. I'd rather they are all one way or the other. Goes back to easier 'correct' parsing. However, I'm sure the entries in ldconfig.ldr will always have their tags (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, the spec says just the opposite, that tags (keywords) are not case-sensitive: (...) That seems reasonable. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I've most recently used dithering to simulate chrome/metal/metallic parts. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) OK, I'm alright with that. (...) If that's a needed parameter, I'd rather have it follow the METALLIC keyword. (...) I'm ok with that, too. Is '50%' really an adequate description? There can be many brush patterns... Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) There had been discussion previously about differentiating true comments from meta-statements. The LSC agreed that it seems like a good idea to start prefixing meta-keywords with a punctuation mark, and we chose !. And !COLOUR is shorter than (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I was considering the possibility of (patterned) parts including custom color definitions, which would only apply to that part. (...) That's a good question. Think about this: what if file A also has some surfaces hard-coded to color (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) By this metric, (URL) not a wing. That's reasonable. If 2413 were a wing, then so would (URL) they are the same shape, essentially. (...) I agree. There are, however, times when that is not possible---for example, (URL) undoubtedly similar (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) No, those 2 lines have to do with the type of light in the scene. Have a read in the POV Scene help file for an explantion of ambient and diffuse light. -Orion (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) Which makes sense when you compare the two renders and notice that the second one (with the IoR at zero) has a much more crystal-like sceptre. I don't know how much of an L3P-produced POV file is original POV code and how much is (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) You're right, I was mistaken. The IOR deals with the transparency. -Orion (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) I don't know POV, but I do know that index of refraction (IoR) shouldn't have any effect on reflections. Perhaps it does, but it shouldn't. You need do decrease the reflectivity, not the IoR. The IoR controls how much light bends when it (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) L3P generates exactly the same color definition for 47, 0x06FFFFFF and 0x03FFFFFF, so normally it shouldn't matter which color you use. However, you include "ldraw_radiosity.inc" which again includes "LDRAW_RAD_COLORl.inc", and in this file (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) Another point to consider in differentiating between a wedge and a wing. IMHO a wing is not symmetrical and has a matching counterpart (left & right) and would be inherently thin. I cant imagine building a plane model with a wing as thick as a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) The first problem is that I don't know where to get those, and I've never figured out whether they're included with the radiosity stuff...are they? (...) The problem is that the sky sphere still creates shadows. :( (...) Well, I tried that and (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) I noticed that in the radiosity code you're using option 1 for the color library. You could try option 2 which is Todd's LUGNET color includes (...) You might consider using shadowless lights (...) Since you using the radiosity include, (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) And here it is: (URL) The white minifig has turned out beautifully - though the sceptre isn't as clear as I would like. Oh well. Maybe I should just stick with solid white. The problem is that any shadows make the minifig look like it's just a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
(...) Neato Steve! We @ SCLTC have a FEW layout loop video's, including being a minifig as an 8wide train passes pulling 1/2 the layout's rolling stock, but I don't think they have been posted yet so I'll post to the group begging for them to be (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: curved monorail track
|
|
(...) I know, this is a late reply, but I've finished it. The "Monorail Track Curve Quarter" (2672) is at the tracker now. (URL) Bernd (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) I don't think we could list which companies to watch out for, and which not to, and be comprehensive. That's why there's a general removal clause in 6.04 to enable the members to remove a SteerCo member in cases of documented, serious (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) Orion, This helps a lot - and fixes that problem. I'll remember to use the actual transparent colors in future! I'll post the full render when my sluggish computer actually decides to do something here. Thanks again, ~Mike (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub and MegaPOV again
|
|
(...) There is NO need to uninstall POV-Ray 3.5! You can have POV 3.1g and 3.5 on the same PC. The ALL-IN-ONE-INSTALLER will attempt to install MEGAPOV into your POV 3.1g directory but if it does not find it it will create it's own folder. Okay here (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | LPub and MegaPOV again
|
|
I finally decided to give LPub another go afte getting the Virtual Lego book last year. I installed everything on a clean machine using the all in one installer on the disk, apart from the fact that I had Povray 3.5 on it already. I have also just (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: More color problems
|
|
(...) I found you problem Mike. How are you telling MLCad to use Trans-White? I suspect you're clicking Custom and then choosing Transparent. I'm inferring this from L3P inclusion of this color: #declare Color0x06FFFFFF The LDraw color number is 47 (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | More color problems
|
|
I, like David, am having problems with color as well. I have used transparent elements before and they have rendered beautifully. However, in this case there seems to be something wrong and I really don't know what it is. I am trying to render a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.ray, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) What about MegaBloks, or any other company that may have an interest? Why pointing the finger on TLC only? Why not have a more general clause about conflict of interest? -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) Doh! I posted without reviewing the current conventions. I suppose I could have inferred that the correct orientation puts the narrow (or corner-less) edge toward the front along the long axis of the part? Thanks for the quick answer, though! (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for your confidence. Based on my experience in the company so far, working relationships I have with Community Development people, and experience in the hobby in general, I do not believe the pressure you hypothesize about is likely to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) Then you'd just use "Plate 4 x 8 Without Corner Left" and "Plate 4 x 8 Without Corner Right" -Orion (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) If LEGO were to produce a rectangular plate, say a 4x8, with a missing corner, what would be a good way to describe it? The part could easily have a mirror-image part, so it wouldn't be enough to say "Plate 4 x 8 without corner," since that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the bylaws discussion. These are important issues, and in my view the opinions put forth have been by and large well thought out and productive. I think we've covered the lion's share of the possible (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) This one should be Wing 3 x 4 (...) These ones are plates with one corner clipped, I think the 'Without Corner' label is better than Wing. I'd like to add these ones to the list: 2621 2625 I had renamed 2625 while it was on the PT for BFC (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) How about these two: 30033 Plate 2 x 2 with Rod Frame Octagonal (URL) 30094 Bar 4 x 4 with 4 Studs (No entry at LUGNet) I suggest changing the last to: 30094 Plate 2 x 2 with Rod Frame Rectangular Christian (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I see. I wasn't clear on what role the LSC has. I've gone back over the posts dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still think it was a valid question. (...) Not really. It's less to do with the way I worded (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Perfectly. Thanks. As I said originally, I don't doubt your integrity or devotion to ldraw.org, TLC employee or not. I was just hypothesising to myself about what a conflict of interest might entail and thinking, perhaps unreasonably, that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Apologies for not making the timeframe - they're *just* about ready and they should be ready to go tomorrow. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) The following official parts do not follow this rule: 4859 32059 2401 2450 2419 30503 6106 (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New MINI Moc: The Shadow
|
|
(...) Dude, that is neato. Original and it refuses to yield to the demands for a cockpit and landing gear. Well played. Now only if oyu could wedge a minifig in there ;-) Kyle (URL) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I do apologise if I misinterpreted your words, but I would suggest that my interpretation is an extremely reasonable one given the word choices you used. (...) I would think not, but I look to the steering committee to do a lot more than make (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Hi Allister - Thanks for that clarification. Actually, I was at a momentary loss for how to approach the answer, but now after thinking it through I have something to say. I would hope that whoever is elected to the Steering Committee would (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I suggested nothing. I was merely asking a question. Can you just answer it without reading motives into it that don't exist? Is it really necessary to be a member of the steering committee in order for suggestions on the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I concur. :) I haven't been following this thread at all up until now, but Jake's post caught my eye. And I agree with what he said - only I want to go a little further. Couldn't anybody that even has association with TLC possibly have a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Conflicts of Interest
|
|
(...) All: While the goal of avoiding conflicts of interest is a laudable one, in practice large numbers of committees operate with members who have them. It is far more important that potential conflicts be disclosed as they crop up. If the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I don't see this discussion as about Tim at all, except as a test case. As I've said before, he's a handy metric. Any rule that excludes him (based on his current employment situation) is wrong, and worse, it is in my view bad for the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I for one certainly don't doubt your devotion to the hobby, nor do I doubt that you will do anything but behave with the utmost integrity as a member of the committee. However, despite this it does concern me that there is nonetheless a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) All, I hope you don't mind if I chime in on the discussion. I just caught up on the thread, and there are a lot of very good things being tossed around. Personally, I tend to like the idea of Larry's to exclude any mention of LEGO employee (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
Thanks for all the suggestions. I am thinking about a tunnel also. The problem is the file size. The colors have to be reduced to keep the size down and the more detail I add the less reduction frame to frame I get. The file right now is 356kb. How (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) In general, a wedge is a 'clipped' brick and a wing is a 'clipped' plate. I don't see any exception to this rule in the official library but if an exception exists on the PT then those part should be commented upon. -Orion (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Dishes are Round (Cornbread are Square)
|
|
(...) Yes, I thought I had checked the inclusion of these keywords. I'll recheck them. Chris (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
(...) I agree that some parts still need renaming. Those you mention are good candidates for an overhaul. We do rely on them getting reviewed quickly on the Parts Tracker. When a part is submitted to the PT for a name change it should not be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
(...) Oh, and can you add some people waving as the train goes by?(1) And a car crash. That would be nice. Just make sure nobody gets hurt. :-) More seriously, trees do add a lot.(2) The MTW signature image (3) uses them to good effect. (for which a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation)
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
(...) And some trees by the side of the tracks. :) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation)
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
(...) It was cool. Thanks to Stripes for posting a reply so I remembered to go check. While one is in the vicinity of that folder, the trench one is worth checking out too. Here's hoping that you, Steve, decide to write up a tutorial on how you did (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) He's high enough up (and his job description is focused in such a critical direction) that I think almost everyone would agree that there was a conflict of interest in his case. LEGO is his career now, after all. (...) The problem with special (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with this. It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into bankrupcy, or (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
Dude, that was really cool :) -Anne (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation)
|
| |
| | Re: Dishes are Round (Cornbread are Square)
|
|
(...) I think so, yes. Because many people look them up with "Space" in their mind. That is why I started this discussion in the first place. Jaco (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of parts
|
|
"Niels Karsdorp" <nkp.nkp@hetnet.nl> schreef in bericht news:HsIEAw.1sur@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) I totally agree with Niels here (again :-) There should be a better way for naming parts. Jaco (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Why not turn the clause 180 degrees? If you get your paycheck from Lego, you can only be eligible after community discussion/approval? I suppose being payed by MegaBloks, or any other clone maker would need the same treatment. -- Anders (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: TRAIN RIDE
|
|
(...) Sounds cool. Got any deep links? Else... color me "can't wait till this is moderated, hope I remember to go back and check!" (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation, FTX)
|
| |
| | TRAIN RIDE
|
|
Ever wonder what it is like to ride your railroad? (URL) low resolution for dial up (URL) If the pictures are jumpy (large file) try "save pacture as" and play from your computer. Enjoy Steve (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.animation, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, I do not think we all agree that. (...) Yes, someone does so disagree. In fact I'd go farther, I think most of us do disagree, at least for the case of people that have little or no practical influence within LEGO (people who work in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree there _might_ be a conflict. I don't believe it would be true in every case. I have suggestions for generic ways of allowing exceptions [1] and will consolidate them and post them later today. -Tim [1] IMO the exception process should (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) ... (...) So let's separate the issues. I think we all agree that a LEGO employee should not be in the SC (if only for the appearance of impropriety). If you want to make a special case for Tim, or make a more generic way of allowing (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Naming of parts
|
|
I think more parts need to be renamed. Recently I was looking for the large excavator arm, did not find it among the parts starting with an E (like the small 3314 Excavator Arm 2 x 6 x 2), did not find it on the PT searching for 'Excavator', so I (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the views are so different that it is unlikely that we can reach a consensus. There may be a majority for either of the two opinions, but I doubt it will be possible general agreement about what is the right solution. (...) Uhm. Right. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) While I agree that someone in that situation might have such a conflict of interest, then again,they might not. It's pretty far fetched to see how someone in Tim's position could possibly have any conflict of interest (except in a good way for (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) This is the best I can come up with: Any person who works in a retail outlet (including kiosks, mall stores, and theme park centers) from the store manager position down or any worker in manufacturing, shipping, or goundskeeping/housekeeping (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I strongly object to a blanket exclusion. I do not believe every position would pose a conflict of interest. Here is a thought: What about instead of having an exclusionary clause, require that if someone is employed by TLC, there be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Dishes are Round (Cornbread are Square)
|
|
(...) 1. Will they still be considered part of the Round category? (I.e., will they then need a "0 CATEGORY Round" meta-statement?) 2. Won't they need "Space", "radar", and "round" added to their lists of KEYWORDS? Thnx, Franklin (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Dish 2 x 2 (4740.dat)
|
|
(...) After some offline discussion with Steve Bliss we have decided that the dish parts will all be named "Dish ...". I'll be fixing the names of the parts on the PT and searching out any that remain to be fixed on the official library. Chris (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
Quoting Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com>: (...) I agree. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I object, for the record. I think the point isn't if someone can influence TLC policy, but if they can influence LDraw's policy. In my optinion, if you get a paycheck from LEGO, you might have a conflict of interest. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | New MINI Moc: The Shadow
|
|
The Shadow. My strange looking new MINI can be found here: (URL) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) My second reply to this post - this time I'm addressing the issue from a personal perspective, rather than the less partial process-oriented viewpoint in my previous post. I am concerned that a blanket provision to ban TLC employees will (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) [...] (...) Fair enough. (...) My position is this - there are certian levels of employment in an organization that don't allow influence over company policy, and those levels of employees should not be excluded from eligibility to be elected (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) it’s not the point if Tim has/has not a conflict of interest or is/is not eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer. I posted the comment just to show that the membership of LEGO employees in fan clubs is an issue and it has to be solved (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Classic Windows: 32c - Not yet confirmed
|
|
(...) With too little sleep, I'm not sure what I'm saying either... :) Let me see... I have 9 copies of 33cc01 and no copy of 32c[c01] I have lots of 32bc01 and 33bc01, I won't even count them. Then I have two or more copies of 33ac01 but no 32ac01 (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I wouldn't expect that to conflict with any responsibilities you might get on the LDraw.org board. (...) Agreed. But it seemed - from Willy's message - like we might run into trouble with the views of a majority of the European LEGO fans using (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I'm a sales associate at a Brand Retail store, part-time. (...) I don't see a conflict with my current job description. Like Larry, I say let it be a campaign issue. That seems to me the simplest solution. -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Classic Windows: 32c - Not yet confirmed
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what you are saying here. 32.dat is the left (hinged) door with the knob on the right. Do you mean you have 9 copies of (URL) all with no hole? If true, it is certainly strange that all of my type 32 parts do have a hole and all (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That (both the itlug and Dan's solutions) is definitely a nice and easy solution. The problem here is that Tim would like to keep his job at LEGO and have a go at being on the LDraw.org steering committee. Since I don't know what Tim's (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
