 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
--snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) Honestly I don't think LDD is so much of a competitor for many people. Its limited parts pallette keeps it quite restrictive. LDraw will always be the high end tool for LEGO CAD due to its versatility and when people (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Times changes and also the behaviour of the people. The internet changes much quicker. But I think the most important item is that LUTNET and also LDraw.org does not make adverticements. So how should be people find us. The new possibilities (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) There are plenty of people still using LDraw and plenty of newcomers to it.In some ways I think it's a victim of its own success. The software is well developed and easy to use and the parts library is vast and easy to install. As such people (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | The future of LDraw?
|
|
There is a discussion in the Lugnet group at facebook on the fact that people leave Lugnet.com in favour for other, often theme specialized sites. Questions like "Why is it so and what can be done to get people back to Lugnet?" are discussed. Some (...) (15 years ago, 14-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: SR 3D Builder 0.4.5.8
|
|
(...) I think you just catched a really wrong version of that part. The file that is currently on the PT is fine like I already wrote above. The last change to this file has been on 07.03.2010 so the mentioned error is now gone. cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 10-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: SR 3D Builder 0.4.5.8
|
|
(...) The error is on the last comment line starting with 0. It's line 13 Note that it is on the unofficial file. Byes Sergio (15 years ago, 9-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: SR 3D Builder 0.4.5.8
|
|
(...) I just downloaded 32016.dat from the PT. I only found that this file is not terminated by CRLF like it should but all other lines seems to be ok. Can you please give the linenumber that has this fault? cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 9-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | SR 3D Builder 0.4.5.8 released
|
|
Hi again, as promised, it is available the latest release of my application It is available as usual for free from its official web site (URL) miss to read the history for a summary of enhancements and changes Sergio (15 years ago, 9-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | SR 3D Builder 0.4.5.8
|
|
Hi, for anyone interested in, a new video announcing the new features of the imminent release has been uploaded on youtube at the follwing address: (URL) new release will be available soon. One note about unofficial part library before leaving: part (...) (15 years ago, 9-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) It makes sense, and has the benefit of homogeneous naming with cross blocks. Philo (15 years ago, 4-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote: <insert scissors here> (...) <insert scissors here> (...) I myself would rather like to see something like Cross Blocks. My suggestion would be: 3651.dat - Technic Connector (Pin/Bush) with 2 Studs 32039.dat - Technic (...) (15 years ago, 4-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: 606p01b.dat (Was: LGPL Datsville)
|
|
(...) Maybe we can replace them after all. Look at this picture: (URL) orange poles indicate the occurances of x606p01b.dat. They are all in undeveloped areas, so I think it's possible to replace them with other roadplates. /Tore (15 years ago, 3-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | 2010/2011 LDraw.org Steering Committee: Voting and results
|
|
As only (URL) five people have accepted> nomination for a position on the 2010/2011 LDraw SteerCo and the SteerCo only has five positions I think we can dispense with voting. The new LDraw SteerCo for 2010/2011 is thus: Kevin Clague, Travis Cobbs, (...) (15 years ago, 2-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Beams vs. Liftarms (was Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation)
|
|
(...) Chris, My sincerest apologies for my remark - After double checking I realized that although I had installed the latest updates, I had not purged the unofficial files from the directories and started looking for liftarms to only find half... (...) (15 years ago, 27-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: HQ minifig head (grin pattern) with LGEO
|
|
(...) Has this problem be solved in the meantime? cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 27-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) <SNIP> (...) "Peghole" is already used in a few part descriptions in the official library, and there are even primitives named peghole* to support their representation. "Pinhole" is not used in the official library at all. Chris Dee (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Beams vs. Liftarms (was Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation)
|
|
(...) I am surprised by this renewed criticism of the Technic Beam naming as we have worked very hard on resolving that issue over the past few releases. Is your library up-to-date? As mentioned at (URL) most of these issues were resolved in (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of Beams and (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) I am mostly OK with your suggestion. The only slightly illogical point is that the bush of 3651 and the Axlehole of 32039 are not so different, so why not name them the same? Otherwise, the other drawback of these names (especially angle (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
In (URL) Philo wrote "Speaking of rationalization, I would be very happy if we could find a coherent naming scheme for parts 3651, 32039, 6553 (and 32013?) - I can't possibly remember 6553 name...". So here is a first suggestion: Currently we have: (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
