 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote: --snip-- (...) I think I see a bit better what you were getting at (and what Tore is getting at too which is the same issue I think). I kind of do agree with you both that making new parts is too hard due in part (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Actually, there has been an 'entry tool' around since 1998 - BlockCAD (www.blockcad.net). While it's using part definitions of its own, and has a lot of limitations (studs up only, fixed rotation of parts, no Technic) you can save models in (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Thank you Orion. I've finally found the presentation I made some time ago and if you're interested you can download it here: (URL) in Spanish, but that should not be a problem. Any suggestions/addition...provements are welcome. Jetro (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) There is also LeoCAD, which has some great features MLCad doesn't have. It sufferes from not being able to use the official parts library (directly), but it's database is regularly updated. And as a bonus it's available for Linux too. I'm (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | (Re)activating Lugnet? (Was: The future of LDraw?)
|
|
(...) I must admit that I didn't know that it isn't possible to get a membership on Lugnet anymore. That's not good. (...) Luckily I keep plenty of backups - also of mission-critical cookies. (...) Yes. What will it take to allow people to get (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Hi Dave, Thanks for your thoughtful input. I might be one of the causes of the bureaucracy you are referring to (in follow on posts). When I started to write LDraw tools back in late 1999, I turned to lugnet's LDraw forum to ask for guidance. (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Rumors of my disassembly have been greatly exaggerated. (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) For the Non-CA parts it should be clear that for legal reasons there has to be another author mentioned. That's why it is handled there in this way. For normal parts it is much more difficult. From what point on it is made from the scratch? - (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) I think you are completely right here! I have done some starts in part authoring, but given up on 'the real thing' as there are no easy parts left to do. Of course this makes it much harder for a budding part author. The quality which is (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Holy moley! Do you still exist?!? (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix them. (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote: ***snip*** I'd like to mention at this point that Tore Eriksson is personally responsible for my first forays into apocryphal parts-authoring. I found his small handful of Tyco-based half-height elements, and I (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Well, I singled out the header-code not as the problem in itself but as symptomatic of a shift that's taken place over a period of years. I don't know how else to say it without sounding petty, and I'm absolutely not singling out any one (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) It is an issue IMO. Probably a small one compared to other ones, but it's the sum of real or subjective obstacles that makes me worried about recruiting new LDraw authors. What I believe is the biggest issue is nobody's fault: All the easy, (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
