 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Nod. But if the people responsible for LUGNET don't want it to gradually fade away and become even less relevant, changes are needed. Without them, other sections won't return either. I note that there's a facebook discussion group started on (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LDBoxer Available at SourceForge
|
|
(...) I've played around a little with my old LDBoxer program. The new version auto-boxes a lot more safe-to-box parts than previous versions. Added support for parts without studs and parts without bottom details (URL) Replace button is made (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Yes that is correct, but importing the files is not using them directly, as most other LDraw programs do. And for folks that have multiple parts folders, that can make a big difference. ROSCO (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) LeoCAD directly imports LDRAW parts. There's no need to wait for an update of its database. It is as simple as downloading from the parts tracker, and then importing into LeoCAD itself. Some folks don't like to manage parts at that level, but (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Welcome back. My issue with that is that it's out of the hands of LDraw. It's hard to expect the people responsible for LUGNET to make big changes when it's pretty much just one small section that is active. Tim (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
