 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I agree to some extent. But now it's there, like it or not. I have very little (if any?) use of it and yes it annoys me a little. The deleting of extra blank lines (used to group lines some way related to eachother) that makes the dat code a (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) HUGE thanks, guys!! i've been using ldraw since the beginning and it's always a little exciting to see what new parts are coming out. i've been wrestling with the lego digital designer software (not as an alternative to ldraw but because i (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers. The extended period of discussion (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm intrigued - the only point in that last sentence that differentiates the "indecipherable gobbledygook" from the inline POV is that the latter "yields a greatly superior output image". It's certainly no less invisible to the end-user, nor (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Despite indications of a steady - if not increasing - rate of new file submission. The post-CA parts updates have shown a steady trend of reducing the backlog, bravo to Chris and the reviewers and the authors! (...) Thanks for the link. Could (...) (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDConfig_Alt.ldr
|
|
(...) I think you need to add some clouds to Datsville ;) Your light settings are very bright! I have just done some test renders that look decent. I agree that these colors may not be perfect for Pov-Ray rendering, because I'm not a rendering (...) (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Yes, the total number of files on the Parts Tracker is now at it lowest since Sep 2007. The u* decision was ratified by the LSC on 5 Feb 2010 and a link to (URL) was posted to Latest News on the LDraw.org home page. Chris (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
In lugnet.announce, Chris Dee wrote: [snipped announcement of 2010-02 parts update] Nice! You *have* been cutting the backlog (based on the PT history graph), awesome! BTW, was there public info about the u* part numbering? I saw that u* parts were (...) (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Thanks for your kind words. I guess I forgot that this update is the first to include files that exceed the 8.3 naming, and we needed a new version of mklist.exe. I'm not sure what happened to the version 1.6 beta annouced at (URL) contact Don (...) (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Another great update and a promise of a third in the making. Your hard work is much appreciated - more than you may realize from the number of replies you get here. I have announced the update on a couple of forums and people are axcited to (...) (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
First of all: once again thanks to all who made this possible. Very impressive update! The thing is now that my mklist does not create a new parts.lst file. I can choose between Number of Description. It starts counting x parts found, but no new (...) (14 years ago, 6-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) That's quite a massive update! Thank You All, part developers, reviewers, organizers, pushers, whatever-s! This is definitely appreciated. (14 years ago, 5-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | MLCad.ini 2010-02 Update Now Available
|
|
Hi, I just updated the MLCad.ini file accordingly to the latest LDraw.org parts update 2010-02. The .ini file defines (among other things) the parts available in MLCad's minifigure generator. Download the file from my website: (URL) w. (14 years ago, 5-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) ... links now fixed. Chris (14 years ago, 5-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
Thanks for the hard work, Chris! (...) ...the links to the dat files in parts preview do not work... Philo (14 years ago, 5-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org 2010-02 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
The 2010-02 LDraw parts update has been now been released. This update includes 950 files in the core library, including 471 new parts, and many more files updated with improvements for Back Face Culling support. A further 10 parts have been (...) (14 years ago, 5-Jul-10, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LDConfig_Alt.ldr
|
|
(...) Well, that depends on where you use it. In L3P, I think black is much better in your version, while lightgrey still looks white and green is maybe better but still way too bright. (URL) there any LDConfig optimized for L3P out there? Or is it (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDConfig_Alt.ldr
|
|
(...) The LDConfig_Alt file has more realistic colors. To use it in MLCAD (version 3.3 or higher), you need to rename LDConfig.ldr to something like LDConfig_BlackEdges.ldr and rename LDConfig_Alt.ldr to LDConfig.ldr. MLCAD will read the file and (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I know, I know. Fair call. I should have learnt years ago never to claim I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. That is lame. Please pretend I murfled both hissy fits. I find it much too difficult to resist attacks against my person and (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Nowhere have you presented an argument that differ in any way from the "collective dogma," so I don't see why your argument should be treated any differently. (...) Don't tease. In your previous reply you said that you were done with the (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
