 | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) I agree that it shouldn't be held for this reason. As for the original question, I think that they should be modeled in the way that it appears they were "intended" to be if and only if at least one of the various copies of the part that show (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) - snippage - (...) I'll agree 85% with Matt. As a casual LDraw user, I'd love to see new parts being available more quickly, which might be done with a more streamlined process. What I agree with Matt about is perhaps redefining the level of (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) You know, this piece typifies the problem with the process and why no new parts get published, at least from my view. The burden of detail required for approval is too onerous. In this particular part the ice cream is fine either way - as the (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
I had the same argument with Steffen about part 3010pt6.dat (URL) I have a few of these bricks and all of them show the pattern slightly off-center. Also online pictures of this brick seem to be identical. Therefore I created the digital version of (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Personally I prefer parts to look as they look not as they "should" look. Sometimes you can even use these imperfections to achieve good effects. Tim (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
I got a hold vote some time ago to the part: (URL) do not agree with Steffen. I think we should try to be realistic. What is your opinion? And what is the opinion of the admins? cu MikeHeide (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Call for Nominations: 2007 LDraw.org Steering Committee
|
|
(...) I, Zach Best, accept this nominiation. (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw Contest: POTM – Part Of The Month
|
|
--snip-- (...) Not by hand... that's what Perl is for ;) Tim (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw Contest: POTM – Part Of The Month
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Willy Tschager wrote: ... (...) ... I think having a direct link to the part would be a great idea. <shameless self-promotion> You could even include a .dat file that contains exactly one line: a reference to the part. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDView SaveSnapshot bug
|
|
(...) Just as an update to this thread, I did track down a bug in LDView 3.0's command line processing of the -SaveSnapshot option that is likely responsible for the blank images you're seeing. That will be fixed in 3.1, and hopefully you'll then be (...) (18 years ago, 14-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad)
|
