Subject:
|
Re: The future of LDraw?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:06:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
21093 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
LEdit's pretty much outdated these days.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..)
> 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 agree here partially. I too think that some bits here are bit too formal...
but I tend to think that !HISTORY lines are pretty much useful to keep track on
what's happened and when.. but something that I can't possibly understand is
that if a part author completely remakes a part and gets it to the tracker, the
rewrite must be a !HISTORY line and the author cannot get the Author line!
Really de-motivating...
> 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!
-Santeri
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) That's 100% fair, and I wouldn't expect them to base any policy decisions on a platform that hasn't changed in 13+ years. The number of people who still use it as their primary interface can probably be counted on one hand. The main reason (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) Is it really...??? Anyway, the average LDraw user will never see the Author line or the History ones! I definitely don't subscribe to the all legalese line we see today (in LDraw or in real life!). To me, it's just something that must be done. (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| 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 (...) (15 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
