 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Possibly so but I'm of the opinion that those that make and share the parts are entitled to some narcissism. And I speak having done minimal part authoring in quite some time (due to laziness) so it's not self-interest at work. --snip-- Your (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Developing LDBoxer Again
|
|
After seven years of thinking and hesitating, I have decided to improve my utility progam LDBoxer. There are lots of room for improvements, but to begin with, I will fix a couple of bugs I have discovered. Then I will focus on making two new (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) I more meant that it de-motivates me from remaking parts if I don't get the proper credit for them! I'm a human being - I want credit for what I do. But maybe "de-motivating" is the bad word for it. Maybe "annoying" is better there. But I just (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Non-issues to you, perhaps. To an outsider, they are symptomatic of a big exercise in narcissism. Decades ago, when I was without a tv but hoping to see the "Spock" episode of ST:TNG, a friend and I went to Penn State's Star Trek club. They (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
--snip-- (...) Please excuse ne while I become really blunt ;) That information isn't there for the end users. It's there for the people volunteering their time to make the parts. As Philo said it's very easy to add automatically with DATHeader and (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Is it really...??? Anyway, the average LDraw user will never see the Author line or the History ones! I definitely don't subscribe to the all legalese line we see today (in LDraw or in real life!). To me, it's just something that must be done. (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) That's 100% fair, and I wouldn't expect them to base any policy decisions on a platform that hasn't changed in 13+ years. The number of people who still use it as their primary interface can probably be counted on one hand. The main reason (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) LEdit's pretty much outdated these days. It doesn't support the LDConfig colours, nor can it edit MPD:s and the LSC is not taking it too seriously when making choices. (at least I'm not..) (...) I agree here partially. I too think that some (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do that's (...) (15 years ago, 19-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
--snip-- (...) I must admit that I hadn't realised it was so hard to post now. That, IMO, means we need somewhere new to discuss LDraw. If new people can't easily post in discussions then we are killing fresh discussion and that is a very bad move. (...) (15 years ago, 19-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
