 | | Re: LDraw Design Pad v2.0 Beta 4
|
|
(...) Wow! Nice feature. Haven't tested it yet but this is definitely going to be very useful. I also updated my betatest page. w. (16 years ago, 20-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Design Pad v2.0 Beta 4
|
|
(...) Looks like it is _something_ on my W2k machine. I tried an another computer with XP and it works fine (...) ...or maybe it is something wrong in the registry: on the XP machine I get a nice grid toolbar that I don't see on the W2k one! (though (...) (16 years ago, 19-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | 50th anniversary of the Smurfs
|
|
Hi all, LEGO is not the only one who celebrates a 50th anniversary. (URL) (click pic) Larger images in my (URL), once moderated. Hope you like it. Play well, Maarten (16 years ago, 19-Sep-08, to lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.cad, lugnet.build, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Design Pad v2.0 Beta 4
|
|
(...) Without adding options, it would be best to have all transformations operations centered on main file origin. An extension would be to allow transformations centered on on user defined point (cf. MLCad). And to go further, transformations (...) (16 years ago, 19-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDconfig.ldr - missing colors
|
|
(...) I have been waiting to hear from someone on this. The issues left to be worked (as I remember them anyway): 1) compile all of the colors into one file (LDConfig.ldr) 2) work out the LDRAW color IDs as best as possible and get the steer co to (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org's position on the copyright of rendered images
|
|
(...) Thank you Willy and the SteerCo for answering the question with this clear and eminently reasonable response. For reference, here is my original question: (URL) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | SR 3D Builder 0.3.2.1 Released
|
|
New version of my CAD application has just been released as always you can find it at (URL) building Sergio (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) The suggestion that fixes to already released official parts should not be in the unofficial library download ((URL)) seems reasonable at first reading, but we need to consider the wider implications. For example, consider the following (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) And they may come back on Tracker as a new version when an author improves an already certified part. So often you have to deal with two version of the same part, one official and one (improved) on PT. Philo (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) That has always happened in the past, and will presumably happen with the next update. The parts tracker "unofficial parts library" only contains new (unreleased) files and that have been modified since the last update. This update was (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
Hi, I'm the author of SR 3D Builder and I was thinking that the update were including part corrections and fixes at least for the official parts, but I understand that is a huge work. Since my appl loads the whole part library to build images for (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) NOT that it's probably relevant to the discussion one way or the other, but... :-) Back before TLG was into their current practice of saving on packaging*, the boxes had what I always referred to as the "Display tray", a plastic molded tray (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Sorry. I misinterpreted your initial post. I just went back and reread it, and see that it doesn't actually say that the user used 4107488.dat, but it does seems to imply this (at least to me). (...) I had forgotten about that new format for (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) The point is that the model does *not* use 4107488.dat because that is not the right shape for the model...... If everyone only ever used 4107488.dat, I would not have brought it up. (...) Chris has told me how to recognize the complete parts. (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote: <snip> (...) This is good to know. Sorry if I missed that. (...) Kevin (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) purely a header standardisation exercise, although minor changes were made to part descriptions as part of this. Chris (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Well, it's not shipped completely disassembled (arms and hands are pre-attached to the torso, and legs are attached to hips). However, I have certainly never seen them shipped completely assembled as a minifig (except for the glued keychains, (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Whether the Header Specification is ambiguous or not, this is how I believe I have implemented the "Shortcut" filetype in the !LDRAW_ORG line. So for the 2008-01 official library onwards, grep '!LDRAW_ORG Shortcut' * > foo should be reliable. (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Design Pad v2.0 Beta 4
|
|
(...) Since there is question about how LDDP should mirror, what is the expected behavior? If my method is unexpected then how should the process be changed? (...) Can you give me more specifics? I added this since the last beta so it might not work (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) <SNIP> (...) Yes, they should, but the "mistake" was made eight years ago, before we had the clarity that time brings to standards implementation. The same applies to 754-756, at least. For backward compatibility reasons we can never remove (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
