Subject:
|
Re: The future of LDraw?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:35:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
21202 times
|
| |
|
|
For whatever reason, I've never made the shift to MLCad or other platforms, and
I've been served very well James Jessiman's foundation programs. Lars Hassing's
L3Lab and Kevin Klague's LPub have been invaluable as well, but everything I do
that's Lego CAD-related (apocryphal or otherwise) starts in LEdit.
Anyone who knows me knows that my particular brand-loyalty makes me a bit of an
outsider in this community, and that's fair. However, speaking as an outsider,
I can say that one thing that has really soured me on LDraw in recent years is
the seemingly obsessive lawyer-ization of it, to the point that it's become less
of an exercise in Lego design and more a monument to hyper-legalism and
over-compartmentalized classification.
I don't have a specific example ready at hand, but I believe that a basic 2x4
brick might conceivably have 18 lines of actual code and 36 lines of why's and
wherefore's and provisos. However necessary this can be argued to be, I find it
distasteful, and a sharp diversion from what I have always perceived to be the
project's original value. This, coupled with a years-long drought of new LDraw
parts, has made it seem as though the primary goal was to create a system of
attribution which, by the way, could also be used to build virtual Lego models.
I think that I only interacted with James on one occasion (on RTL); others here
knew him much better and were in on the ground floor of LEdit long before I
showed up at the party in late 1997, so I don't presume to understand his vision
better than anyone else.
I'm also not flaming anybody, nor am I claiming special insight as to what would
work "better" than the current scheme. However, if we're asking why people have
drifted from the LDraw portion of the hobby, then it seems to me that part of
the answer must address the rigidity that's taken hold in the past few years,
and we must ask if it was worthwhile, even if we accept that it was necessary.
My $0.02.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) LEdit's pretty much outdated these days. It doesn't support the LDConfig colours, nor can it edit MPD:s and the LSC is not taking it too seriously when making choices. (at least I'm not..) (...) I agree here partially. I too think that some (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
