 | | Re: Advice on hair pieces
|
|
(...) Actually original parts only have triangles and have been merged by stl2dat (the 4th batch used a different concerter and no triangle to quad merge is done). That said, I had a look at m62696, there are only 5 non-coplanar quads, all within (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Advice on hair pieces
|
|
I've moved on to looking at part 62696, "Minifig Hair Ponytail with Long Bangs" (x1930 on Peeron), and I found the part needs a lot of cleanup. (So does 30475, which surprisingly has received no cleanup at all desipte its submission to the tracker.) (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
There is one more thing to add to Joshua extensive explanations: coplanar triangle pairs are not assembled into quads. I advocated for that, because it offers the maximum flexibility when splitting into subparts or adjusting vertices position (no (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) Depends on the model. Some models I can "see ahead" enough to change the order to make it easier to build virtually. But with a model this big, I mostly follow along with the instructions. The file does NOT have instruction steps though (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) The astute parts author will notice a slightly new format to these new files. I thought it might help to describe them. The first line is the official LEGO Group name for the part. These are almost always exclusively in UPPERCASE, so you'll (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) Reading is in "landscape" mode, while RCX/Scout are in "portrait" mode. (...) Yep. Differences are very low anyway, except in the reader area. (...) Wow! (...) VERY blocky ;o) (...) Interesting to see the sequence. Do you follow LEGO building (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Universe parts cleanup etiquette
|
|
(...) If the part is on the wiki pages it would be a good hint for others to modify that page with the comment "cleansing in process". If not, just upload to the PT if you are ready. (...) Should be standard practice, but I am not sure all (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) I agree, and if these were final renders I would be more careful. But since they are just "work-in-progress" pictures, I just used the same lighting for each. For full models it works very well indeed. (...) True. Although you can see that (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | LEGO Universe parts cleanup etiquette
|
|
I have two authored parts under my belt, but both of them were modeled strictly by eye and patience. Now with the LEGO Universe Team releasing part files in need of cleanup I feel like I can contribute more. I've been working on cleaning up a part (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Advanced minifig animations
|
|
(...) You don't have to work from scratch; there are several versions around on the web of a LDraw import plugin for Blender. Here's the one that I use: (URL) of a steep learning curve, I've found that once you've imported your model, you should (...) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) That's what bothers the photographer in me ;o) (...) Maybe, yes. Black seems OK. Finally I did a mockup... Battery lid is done, still a lot of work for cover! (URL) (14 years ago, 15-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) That's the result of several things, but mostly the reflectivity of the colors I'm using. When I have no background or floor like these images, there is nothing to block or scatter the area lights and HDR lights I use so you get bright (...) (14 years ago, 14-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) Little chance for that: doing a mockup takes time that would be essentially thrown away... But I'll post subparts as I build them. (...) Isn't it a bit too light? the grey seem washed out (as I thought it might be a bad setting of my screen, I (...) (14 years ago, 14-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) Thanks Philo! I really appreciate the effort this will take. I will just place another part (perhaps a Scout) in the model as a placeholder until a better replacement is available. If you could place even an early draft on the Parts Tracker, (...) (14 years ago, 13-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
(...) Wonderful! (...) I should be able to do that, since it is indeed easier than Spybotics... But don't expect it so soon! (...) I have one ;o) Philo (14 years ago, 13-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LPub Q's
|
|
(...) Hi Mike, Nice to hear from you! In LPub 4, there is only the orientation file, because you can perform scaling and orientation with one file. Duh! How many years did it take me to figure that out! Hah! Look in the preferences section for the (...) (14 years ago, 13-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bioncile part naming
|
|
(...) Isn't the primary connection the Ball Joint & Socket? Shouldn't that come into the name? (14 years ago, 13-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Code Pilot LDraw
|
|
I have begun the challenging task of modeling the dump truck from the Barcode Multi Set 8479. This huge model will require a lot of effort, but you can see some of the "work in progress" results below. The problem, of course, is that the (URL) Code (...) (14 years ago, 13-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | LPub Q's
|
|
I got the urge to finish a set of instructions that I started years ago over the weekend. I have the MPD complete but am running into some problems generating a usable set of instructions using LPub. Where does the half_size.ldr file reside? Same (...) (14 years ago, 13-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bioncile part naming
|
|
(...) The parts you are showing are not identically! So in this case this problem does not arise but it is still there. I am against a big renaming and I like your suggestion. But why should we use "Technic Figure"? Because it is used in figures? No (...) (14 years ago, 12-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
